Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The burden of health inequities borne by Indigenous peoples can be overwhelming, especially when mothers and new-borns' lives are at stake and health services seem slow to invest in responsiveness.In Aotearoa (New Zealand), urgent action is required to eliminate systemic inequities for M aori (Indigenous) families.Methods: In a Kaupapa M aori (by M aori, for M aori) qualitative longitudinal study that explored the experiences of 19 families of preterm M aori infants over the first year of their infants' lives, 10 health practitioners who the families identified as champions were interviewed.They were asked about their involvement with the family, their role in explanations and communication and their thoughts on family coping.Interview data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.Results: Three superordinate themes were identified: working together in partnership, a problem shared is a problem halved, and sacred space.Collaboration between health practitioners and with families was important to the champions and central to their goal of enabling family autonomy.This was built on a foundation of connectivity, relationships and a full appreciation that childbirth is a sacred time that is potentially disrupted when an infant is born prematurely.Conclusions: The values-and relationship-based practices of these champions protected and uplifted families.They showed that health practitioners have important roles in both the elimination of inequities and the sustaining of Indigenous self-determination.This championship is an exemplar of what culturally safe care looks like in day-to-day practice with M aori and is a standard that other health practitioners should be held to.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.933 | 0.850 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".