Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural appropriateness has become an important conceptual tool for health care professionals serving diverse patient populations. Physicians and other health care providers working in urban communities are increasingly challenged to provide care that is responsive to the health needs and beliefs of immigrants, refugees and other newcomers to mainstream health services. This paper argues that notions of cultural 'sensitivity' or 'competency' help health practitioners acknowledge professional and biomedical biases, but also risk dehistoricizing and hence disempowering newcomers by failing to recognize culture as a dynamic process. Without attention to the ways in which newcomers actively produce culture and make sense of illness experience, health care workers ignore the contexts in which people. become ill and hence cannot act as healers. By presenting the case of one newcomer to the Canadian health care system, I argue that narratives provide a valuable tool for health practitioners to understand how newcomers actively engage and come to terms with illness, without defining them as determined by a set of cultural beliefs or practices.
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 | 0.039 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.110 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| 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".