Mapping evidence gaps on workplace injustices and discrimination experienced by Black health professionals in Canada: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review examines how work-related injustice and discrimination against Black health professionals in Canada have been studied and conceptualized. Although anti-Black racism and systemic oppression are increasingly recognized in healthcare, the specific workplace realities of Black practitioners remain underexplored and often invisibilized. This review critically synthesizes current evidence on the forms, contexts, impacts, and responses to injustice, while reflecting on the epistemological accuracy of existing literature. Aligned with an afro-emancipatory critical approach, it foregrounds the lived experiences of Black professionals rather than generalized narratives of racialized groups. This review will reveal how research may reproduce or challenge oppressive mechanisms, expose gaps where Black voices are absent, and highlight opportunities to better represent these perspectives in emancipatory knowledge-production efforts in the health field.
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 | 0.100 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".