Canadian dietetic education and training actions to support Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The paper describes activities of dietetic education and training programs within Canada to advance Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation. METHODS: A self-administered 34-question cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to all Canadian dietetic education and training programs, and available February-May 2022. A matrix question examined key actions and scope at program and/or institutional levels, while question logic and open-ended feedback options supported further description. Additional open-ended questions explored respondents' perspectives on perceived barriers and needed supports for action. Descriptive statistics and deductive codes are presented. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 20 of 29 dietetic programs (69%). Adding Indigenous-related content to curricula (n = 18) and cultural immersion opportunities within Indigenous settings (n = 16) mainly occurred at the program level. Attracting and supporting Indigenous students/interns, staff, and faculty and preceptors (n = 19) and providing cultural safety training to staff and faculty (n = 17) were common activities of institutions. Respondents identified lack of resources (funding, staff, and time) as systemic barriers and the need for dietetic leadership support to advance processes of Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation. CONCLUSION: This study established a baseline record of Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation activities in Canadian dietetic education and training programs that can inform future work. Programs are encouraged to (1) evaluate current and future activities; (2) ensure activities are part of a comprehensive approach to Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation, rooted in Indigenous, social justice, and health equity principles; and (3) consider collaborative action and advocacy to overcome systemic barriers, with the support of dietetic leadership.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".