Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundRecent intersecting crises such as the protests against anti-Black racism after the public murder of George Floyd and the call for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples following the discovery of thousands of unmarked graves of children at multiple former Residential Schools, have drawn mainstream attention, to issues related to colonization and racism, against which advocates have long spoken.The COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed the persistent social inequities experienced by Indigenous, Black, and racialized communities in Canada as they are Volume 7, Issue 1 ISSN 1923-1237 over-represented by COVID-19 cases and barriers to accessing health services (Toronto Public Health, 2022).While racism and colonization have been well-documented in Canada, the recent public awareness of these issues, once considered "fringe," has pressured organizations to name and address these forms of oppression.In Canada, anti-oppressive practice literature emerged from the critical social work scholarship in the early 2000s.Scholars and advocates pointed to the unjust social structures and policies in which social work is embedded and called on practitioners to challenge these oppressive systems in their practice (Mullay, 2002& Baines, 2007).This however, has not been the priority for dietetics, which has been behind in its recognition for this work despite the efforts of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) dietitians and allies calling for the need for anti-oppressive education (for example, Djulus et al., 2022) within the education institutions (Wellington et al.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.018 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".