Canadian Undergraduate Nursing Students' Experiences of Learning Indigenous Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western Research Forum Abstract Submission\nCanadian Undergraduate Nursing Students’ Experiences with Learning Indigenous Health\nBackgroundThe purpose of this study is to better understand undergraduate nurses’ experiences in learning about Indigenous health. This will determine what changes are needed within nursing education locally and across Canada. Implications for nursing education, research, practice, policy, and leadership will be drawn to provide pragmatic suggestions in improving Indigenous health status and outcomes. A qualitative study will be conducted using critical ethnography and semi-structured interviews to determine facilitators and barriers to learning about Indigenous health.\nMethodsCritical ethnography will be utilized to examine 12 nursing students from four different Schools of Nursing on their experiences. A thematic analysis will be conducted to elicit current methods of learning about Indigenous health. Facilitators and barriers will also be presented to argue for nursing curriculum reform and broader implications for nursing programs.\nResultsLittle research exists on the learner’s experiences of Indigenous health. Barriers and facilitators from learner’s perspectives presented will allow for critical discussion. This will assist ongoing initiatives to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Report (2015) – Calls to Action #23 and 24.\nDiscussion & ConclusionsThis paper will discuss various methods to approach Indigenous health education in nursing curriculum. It will conclude with recommendations to further advocacy work for adequate representation and value of Indigenous voices and perspectives within Canadian Schools of Nursing.\nInterdisciplinary ReflectionConcepts from this study will draw from a diverse range of interdisciplinary knowledge including Social Sciences, Education, and First Nations Studies. Drawing from multiple disciplines will demonstrate the need for greater interdisciplinary approaches in understanding and improving Indigenous health.\nKeywords: Indigenous health, Nursing, Critical Ethnography, Nursing Students Experience, Nursing Education, Indigenous Education, Nursing 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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".