Tuberculosis and Colonialism: Current Tales about Tuberculosis and Colonialism in Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine Inuit experience and make meaning of tuberculosis (TB) and how this may relate to the prevalence of TB in Nunavut. The study was conducted through seven months of fieldwork in two Nunavut communities using ethnographic methods for data collection including interviews, observation, participant observation, and document review. The study found that Inuit participants made meaning of TB through a combination of biomedical and traditionally Inuit holistic explanations. The theme of colonialism recurred as an influence shaping the Inuit experience of TB, through socio-political effects of colonization, such as poverty and substance abuse, and through continuing colonialism, including offering public health education in culturally incongruent ways. Examples of discrimination within and outside the healthcare system were also described as effecting the Inuit experience of TB. In order to decrease the incidence of TB in Nunavut, decolonizing measures are necessary. Decolonizing measures include embracing Inuit ways and values in educational, health and political matters. In order for this to be possible and to reduce poverty, an infusion of funds from the federal government is needed. Euro Canadians working in the Nunavut healthcare system must also examine the assumptions, motivations and values that inform their work.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".