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

Cultural Safety in Emergency Support Services

2022· article· en· W4393858336 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.000

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.

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