MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393858336 · doi:10.25071/dc96hh22

Cultural Safety in Emergency Support Services

2022· article· en· W4393858336 on OpenAlexaff
Kayla Pepper, Valérie Te Riele

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMedical emergencyInternet privacyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfire and flood events of recent years, including this year, have stretched and tested British Columbia’s Emergency Support Services (ESS) system, a provincial program designed by Emergency Management BC (EMBC) to support evacuees. After action reviews from the 2017 and 2018 wildfire and flood seasons, demonstrate ESS approaches fell short of providing fully adequate support to Indigenous communities. Building upon a Master’s thesis which was designed using Indigenous research methodologies and action research engagement principles, I asked the question: “How might emergency management practitioners braid cultural safety and a respect, honouring and celebration of Indigenous traditional knowledge, and community-based practices into ESS training and practices?” This article offers a summary of findings and recommendations for practical application for communities and emergency management organizations across the country. The findings include:
 Finding 1 was a theme related to the context and the current state of emergency services evacuations in 2020. This included the social and historical contexts, jurisdiction, and roles and responsibilities.
 Finding 2 focused on the participants’ perspectives of a definition of ‘Cultural Safety,’ which included the identification of specific competencies, a focus on trust-based relationships, and a connection to land.
 Finding 3 focused on the evacuation and registration process, including keeping families together, the use of community ‘navigators,’ (key individuals with knowledge of community protocol trusted by the community), and suggestions for reception centres in the process of registering evacuees.
 Finding 4 was about providing appropriate supports and services to evacuate communities, including providing traditional food, appropriate accommodation, transportation, language, culture and cultural protocols, and including pets.
 Finding 5 encompassed knowledge and training required for ESS professionals engaged in evacuation of communities. This included content for culturally relevant ESS training, which need to be codesigned and led by indigenous cultural navigators, as well as incorporating evaluation and public education.
 Finding 6 is on the theme of Planning and Preparedness, and includes subtopics of relationships, professional capacity, emergency and evacuation plans, personal preparedness and responder self-care and wellness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0020.019
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency ManagementSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207