Cultural Safety: A First Nations Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum designed to promote the cultural safety of health professionals is now expected in Australia. There is, however, limited research demonstrating the relationship between this curriculum content and the ability to work in a culturally safe manner. Eleven advisory group members were recruited from various First Nations groups in Australia. Through participation in Yarns, members were invited to describe their experiences of cultural safety in healthcare and their desires regarding the education of healthcare students. Yarns were digitally audio-recorded and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. For First Nations Peoples, cultural safety is a multifaceted, lifelong journey, marked by continuous growth and relational learning. The experience of cultural safety is unique to each person receiving care. Authentic relationships and respect for cultural protocols and responsibilities are essential. Forming genuine connections with local First Nations Communities and sustaining authentic relationships through empathy, respect and deep listening is fundamental. Structural barriers to addressing cultural safety were identified, including: constraints on the time and resources of health professionals; the enduring impact of colonial policies; the role of tertiary institutions in marginalising Indigenous knowledges and voices, and the fact that opportunities for creating respectful and direct engagement with First Nations Communities remain limited in tertiary education programmes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".