A phenomenological study of the lived experience of culturally sensitive care in a First Nation community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term, culturally sensitive care has been used extensively in health care literature but has not been satisfactorily defined or operationalized. In this phenomenological study, effort is made to examine the lived experience and perceptions of four Aboriginal women who access services at a community health center designed for and managed by Aboriginal people. The study looks at data collected through intensive interviews with each of the women and findings are generated through identification of five main themes that are relevant to all four women. These include: identity as an Aboriginal woman, experiences of racism, perceptions of culture, societal systems and relationships at Tsewultun Health Center. The overall premise of this study is that of Aboriginal culture being in an ongoing state of evolution and transition given the forces that shape our society. Adapting services and ways of caring to include an awareness and understanding of these issues is imperative.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".