Culturally Appropriate Care— A Multicultural Task: Assessing the Needs of Inuit Youth in the Care of Child Welfare Services / ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᓂᖅ— ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᓱᓕᕆᓂᖅ: ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ ᑭᓐᖒᒪᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑎᒍᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 30% of children in Nunavik have been reported to child welfare services byprofessionals, community workers, and/or community members due to possible need of protection, according to a recent report that identified important gaps in the system of care for Inuit youth in Nunavik (Sirois & Montminy, 2010). The objective of this qualitative study was to assess the perspectives of various actors regarding the needs of Inuit youth living in a residential facility in Montreal. Our methods included non-participant observation; semi-structured interviews with youth, residential staff, therapists, and a culture broker; and video production with youth. Adopting a systemic approach, we discuss how the various perspectives converge and diverge and the place that is given to culture in the discourses. We conclude that developing culturally appropriate care for Inuit youth in the care of child welfare is a multicultural task, as it involves multiple groups of individuals influenced by their professional and personal cultures. We suggest the merging of perspectives as a potential for creating innovative practices that are culturally sensitive. ᓇᑉᐸᑲᓴᖏᑦ (30%) ᓱᕈᓰᑦ ᓄᓇᕕᒻᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᓕᒻᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᒥᐅᓄᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᐳᑎᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᖃᓂᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒍ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᔪᔪᖅ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᒃ (ᓯᕈᐊ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒫᓐᑎᒦᓂ, 2010). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᑖᔅᓱᒪ ᑐᕌᒐᖓ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᐅᔪᕗᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᐸᑲᖅᑕᕐᕕᐅᕙᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᑦ ᑭᓐᖒᒪᔾᔪᑎᒋᒋᐊᓕᖏᑦ ᒪᓐᑐᕆᐊᒥ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᕐᕕᐅᔪᒥ. ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᔪᔭᕗᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᒐᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ; ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᐊᕋᑎᒃ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑏᑦ, ᓇᔪᒐᖃᕐᕕᐅᔪᒥᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖏᓐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᔨᒥᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᑕᕐᕆᔮᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᓄᑕᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᖅᑯᓯᐅᖅᑐᑕ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᕈᖅᑎᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖅ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᒋᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᐃᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒨᖓᔪᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓄᑦᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᒋᐊᑐᔪᖅ, ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ. ᐱᔪᒪᔾᔪᑎᓕᐅᖁᔨᕗᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᔾᔪᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᓐᖑᑦᑎᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".