Mino Pimatiseewin : a content analysis of the Aboriginal and First Nations submissions to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research supports the assertion that First Nations peoples and their organizations have suggestions and potential solutions for addressing the future of health care in Canada as it relates First Nations Canadians. First Nations understand and know what changes are needed to improve their poor health status within Canada. This research, based on a First Nation perspective, used content analysis to explore the needs identified by the First Nations organizations that responded to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada (the Romanow Commission). The Romanow Commission was established in April 2001 and one element of its mandate was to engage Canadians in a national dialogue on the future of heath care and make recommendations to the health care system. This research examined the written submissions to the Romanow Commission by the thirty-two (32) Aboriginal organizations. The main interest and focus of this research was on the written submissions of eighteen (18) First Nations organizations. The Aboriginal Life Promotion Framework (Bartlett, 2004) was developed by a Metis woman and sensitized the researcher in the direction and organization of the research data. The research analysis revealed twenty-one (21) themes among the Aboriginal submissions. Four (4) of these themes were common to all five identified Aboriginal categories [First Nations, Inuit, Metis, Metis & Aboriginal, Aboriginal Interest/Focus] created by the researcher to assist in the organization of the research data. The researcher examined these four themes with the major focus being First Nations health concerns with respect to: (1) relatonships with federal and provincial governments; (2) policy and program development; (3) fiscal resources; and, (4) accessibility issues. The research found First Nations did not echo the same approach to change the health care system as the Romanow Commission did in its final report regarding Aboriginal Health. It is important for First Nations people to put forth their own ideas about the direction for First Nations health to offset the pan-Aboriginal approach that the Romanow Commission has offered. Therefore, this research supports the need for increased participation by First Nations peoples, including their respective governments and First Nations health organizations in health research. From their own perspectives, First Nations identified their own solutions, which they believe may likely lead to a better health care system for First Nations. This research has advocated for the future development of a "Mioo Pimatisiwin or Mino Pimatisiwin First Nations Conceptual Framework" developed by First Nations for First Nations Health Research. "Mino Pimatisiwin" in the Swampy Cree language [Mioo Pimatisiwin in the Woodlands Cree] translated infers the meaning "good survival/living, "healthy survival/living". The results of this research will be of interest to those engaged in policy development as it relates to First Nations health.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,020 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».