Children as citizens of First Nations: Linking Indigenous health to early childhood development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shuswap Elder Mary Thomas once observed that “children are the future” of Aboriginal peoples*. Her observation, while deceptively straightforward, has important health implications, particularly when Indigenous health is understood within the context of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) and of subsequent realizations both that health encompasses much more than biomedical concerns (1) and that considering health holistically is a cost-effective practice (2). Thus, it is with Elder Mary Thomas’ words in mind that the present paper explores the link between the growth and development of Aboriginal children and Indigenous health and well-being. One cannot examine the health and well-being of Aboriginal children without understanding and acknowledging their unique social, political and historical context. In Canada, Aboriginal children are born into a colonial legacy: low socioeconomic status (3), intergenerational trauma associated with residential schooling (4), high rates of substance abuse (5), increased incidents of interaction with the criminal justice system (6-8), and extensive loss of language and culture (6) are but a few of the indicators suggesting the immediate need for health promotion in Indigenous communities. Aboriginal children’s growth and development, particularly growth and development that fosters and promotes cultural strength, congruency and citizenship, is at the forefront of addressing these health disparities. Indeed, as Chandler and Lalonde (9) have established, a sense of cultural continuity in Indigenous peoples and communities builds resiliency and results in demonstrated reductions of negative health outcomes, including youth suicide. The right of cultural continuity is affirmed by the Canadian Constitution, which states that “First Nations children have a right to live proudly as a First Nations person on their ancestral lands [and] First Nations children have a right to learn, maintain, and preserve their respective language(s) and cultures”. The rights affirmed in the Canadian Constitution parallel those established at the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), including the recognition that “traditional cultural values are highlighted as essential for the protection and harmonious development of children”. Finally, considerations established by the Canadian Constitution and the CRC are mirrored in the draft ‘United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous people’, wherein Article 15 states that Indigenous children have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State…[and] all Indigenous peoples also have this right and the right to establish and control their own education systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".