Exploring the Impact of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Initiatives Within a Canadian Nursing Program: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interventions that aim to address equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) within the health professions often strive to promote the retention, recruitment, and success of individuals from historically underrepresented groups, who often belong to the same groups experiencing underservicing in health care. A pilot study aimed to examine the impact of ongoing EDI initiatives at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada by exploring sense of belonging and curricular inclusion/representation from the perspectives of enrolled students. Intersectionality Theory was operationalized by way of considering the relational and contextual nature of marginalization. Results showed differences in perceptions of impacted sense of belonging and curricular inclusion/representation of diverse groups between respondents in the underrepresented subgroup as compared to their overrepresented counterparts. Differences in underrepresented and overrepresented subgroups' perceptions of impacted sense of belonging and curricular inclusion/representation suggest a need for further research to better understand the impact of EDI interventions on nursing students.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".