MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7112790736

Working right ways investigating health practitioners’ perspectives of foot health and needs for providing good foot care with and for First Nations Peoples.

2025· preprint· W7112790736 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoot (prosody)Health careQualitative researchHealth policyPublic healthInternational healthWork (physics)Thematic analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: History of invasion, ongoing colonisation, and systemic racism excluding First Nations Peoples from healthcare are root cause of health inequalities including disparities in foot health outcomes. Sources of inquiry into current practice, learning, and experience which may shape reform of providing good foot care with and for First Nations Peoples in the land now known as Australia are health practitioners working in the space. This work seeks to explore foot care service delivery by investigating First Nations and non-Indigenous health practitioners’ perspectives regarding providing foot care with and for First Nations Peoples. Methods: Ways of working are documented in previous work; ‘Working right ways in foot health with and for First Nations Peoples: research method guided and governed by First Nations ways of knowing, being, and doing in cross-sectional qualitative study design’. Four First Nations and six non-Indigenous health practitioners provided perspectives with culturally responsive semi-structured interviews guiding talking with consenting participants. Analytic induction utilised First Nations expertise, inductive reasoning, and constant comparison method in thematic analysis. Results: Two talking points engaged health practitioners’ perspectives of providing foot care with and for First Nations Peoples: (1) What does foot health mean to you as a First Nations or non-Indigenous health practitioner? (2) What are needs for providing good foot care with and for First Nations Peoples? Within responses, themes emerged of mobility, overall wellbeing, and advocacy being related to the meaning of foot health. The requirements of Cultural Safety, workforce, and holistic care were perceived as needed for provision of good foot care with and for First Nations Peoples. Conclusion: Participants described a meaning of foot health relational to physical and spiritual constructs, and central to reclamation of, and continuation of, First Nations cultures; amidst a project of ongoing colonisation. Needs for good foot care provision with and for First Nations Peoples included a workforce continually learning and unlearning to develop cultural capabilities to work with and for, and support, First Nations foot health. This study provides qualified voiced lived experience of health practitioners working in the space which the podiatry profession must listen to and receive direction and learning from.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it