First Nations Women Workers' Speak, Write and Research Back: Child Welfare and Decolonizing Stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is a similar study to Gold’s (1998) study on the promotion of physical and mental health of mainstream female social workers in child welfare. Six First Nations women Child and Family Service (CFS) Social Workers (FNWCFSSW’s) who work in First Nations agencies gathered with me to share individual and collective stories about our CFS experiences. First Nations women and I discussed the impacts of our work on our holistic health, how we coped with the work, and strategies to deal with the issues that we face. This study outlines the research process that we engaged in, and, essentially weaves together the challenges, resilience, innovations, and unique experiences of First Nations women CFS Social Workers in a First Nations setting under a delegated authority model. As a result of these discussions five major themes were identified. The five themes that emerged from this study include the stress of dual accountability, the stresses of unrealistic expectations and multiple roles, the emotional costs and benefits of the intensity of the relationships, the fact that meaningful work gives strength and how the women coped and maintained their holistic health. This study reveals the important need for future participatory research to be conducted with FNWCFSSW and First Nations peoples. Ultimately, this paper speaks to the importance of changing the nature of along-term colonial relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples within the child welfare system and in dominant mainstream research processes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".