Inclusive Accessible or Culturally Relevant? Two Perspectives on Accounting for Culture in Community-based Stroke Physical Activity Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing prevalence of stroke, recognition of health disparities experienced by ethnically marginalized communities, and growing cultural diversity across Canada, community-based organizations have a distinct opportunity to address the unique barriers and cultural needs of culturally diverse individuals with stroke. This thesis explores how eight program leaders within Canadian community-based organizations account for ethnicity and culture in the development of stroke physical activity programs. Three themes were identified based on interviews with program leaders: (1) multiple definitions of culturally relevant programs, (2) inclusive & accessible and culturally relevant program attributes, and (3) inclusive & accessible mindset versus culturally relevant mindset. The findings of this thesis highlight the variability of program leaders’ perspectives when defining culturally relevant and their approaches to designing and delivering programs for ethnically and culturally diverse people with stroke, including whether or how they integrate cultural needs into programs, which they describe is often a decision made by program leaders rather than a requirement of programs or organizations.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".