MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406389513 · doi:10.1177/08445621251313497

Special Issue on Anti-Racism, Health, and Nursing

2025· editorial· en· W4406389513 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bukola Salami, Josephine Pui‐Hing Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismMedicineSociologyNursingEngineering ethicsManagement scienceEngineeringGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although race is socially constructed, racism and racialization are social determinants of health. Over four centuries of colonial genocide and structural violence against Indigenous and Black peoples in Canada have resulted in intergeneration traumas and health disparities among Indigenous and Black people, sustained by ongoing social, political, and economic inequities. Evidence indicates the impact of contemporary and historical forms of racism on health outcomes. This special issue invited papers that could contribute to our understanding of the role of racism in nursing and health in Canada as well as solutions to tackle racism in healthcare and the nursing profession. Our call for proposals produced around 16 articles, all of which provide critical insight to address racism in nursing and healthcare. These articles explore the experience of racism in Indigenous, Black, Asian, and other populations across education, clinical, and community settings. They also advance our understanding on philosophical and theoretical approaches to address racism and provide us with effective tools and insight to address racism in nursing and healthcare in Canada.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0180.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.009

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.442 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207