My journey as a nurse in Nepal and Canada: autoethnographic reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I have tried to compare and contrast the status of disability in Nepal in terms of education, employment, accessibility, and health through my experiences of living in Nepal and moving to Canada. I start with what is now known from the many studies conducted in the field of disability in Nepal. Coming from a medical background, I challenged my understanding of the medical model of disability and brought my experiences to light from the perspective of the social model of disability. Through my experiences and understanding of Nepalese society, I also discuss the religious concepts of disability in Nepal along with prevalent taboos and social beliefs about disability, and how discrimination is automatic due to these beliefs. I also present my experiences with education, employment, and health care and how accessibility is key in ensuring that everyone has access to these services. Overall, my study highlights the need for continued efforts by the Nepal government and its external development partners (EDP’s) to improve the status of disabled people in Nepal. By prioritizing disability rights, investing in disability-inclusive policies and programs, and promoting social inclusion and awareness, the government can improve the quality of life for people with disabilities in Nepal. Furthermore, by prioritizing disability-inclusive medical education, healthcare professionals in Nepal can be equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to provide quality healthcare services to people with disabilities. As the world continues to prioritize disability rights and inclusion, it is essential for countries such as Nepal to keep pace with global efforts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".