Custodial dermatology for First Nations peoples: a niche service caring for incarcerated communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PerspectiveCustodial dermatology for First Nations peoples: a niche service caring for incarcerated communities Positionality statement O ur group comprises an Aboriginal dermatologist, a general practice clinical researcher and an Aboriginal otolaryngologist.As clinicians and advocates, we have an enduring dedication to the health and wellbeing of First Nations adults and children, particularly as it relates to our work in custodial health due to the overwhelming and racialised hyperincarceration of our communities.It is through this lens that we strive to deliver health care services that meet and exceed our duties under the United Nations obligations.Our position is that our collective human rights focused health care duty extends beyond emergency and primary care needs for incarcerated communities and aspires to ensure equitable and timely accessibility to medical and surgical subspecialty disciplines.Given the complex health needs of those experiencing the intersectional marginalisation of incarceration, chronically ill health, disability and barriers to culturally safe care, health care should be of the same standard or better, to meet the complex needs for incarcerated individuals with the goal of returning healthier people to our communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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.
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".