Resilience and Aboriginal Communities in Crisis: Theory and Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resilience in Aboriginal communities is a long process of healing that allows to supersede the multiple trauma and the loss of culture experienced during the colonization and after. The presence of social capital is central to this process in building bridges between persons, families and social groups with the aim of developing a spirit of civic culture. The process usually relies in the first stage on the vision of a few leaders whose example brings forward a larger segment of their community. Characteristics specific to the notion of resilience in Aboriginal cultures are: spirituality, holism, resistance and forgiveness. The main obstacle to overcome in the process of resilience is the phenomenon of codependency which leads to superficial attachment, lack of trust, and refusal of authority. The concept of cultural identity is central to resilience in this context and there is a need to create a new cultural ethos in continuity with the traditions. Each community has to undergo its own course and cannot copy success stories, mainly be inspired through a process of lateral knowledge transfer. Finally, community resilience has to rely on the capacity of families to be resilient themselves which involves breaking the law of silence, naming problems and coping with them with the support of networks and institutions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".