<i>“</i> I would just like to see more acknowledgement, respect and services for the people who are in between, just Métis people <i>”</i> : recommendations by Métis women to improve access to health and social services in Victoria, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on recommendations made by Métis women, two-spirit, and gender diverse people for improving access to health and social services in Victoria, British Columbia. Expanding on research conducted in Toronto, Ontario, this study applied a conversational interview method to further explore and understand experiences of self-identifying Métis women, two-spirit, and gender diverse people ( n = 24) who access health and social services in Victoria. Participants provided wholistic and practical recommendations for improving access to health and social services, including (1) warm and inviting service spaces, (2) Métis-specific cultural safety training, (3) Indigenous specific clinic, (4) wholistic or integrative service delivery, and (5) non-judgemental service providers. This research demonstrates that Métis women, two-spirit and gender diverse community members hold practical solutions for improving access to health and social services for the larger Métis community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".