Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will discuss indigenous knowledge and epistemologies of health and well-being as essential practices to improving the health status of Aboriginal communities. These methods will be illustrated through the practice of Aboriginal midwifery and birthing practices currently being revitalized in Aboriginal communities. Indigenous knowledge of health, well-being, medicine, and healing practices have historically sustained the health and well-being of Aboriginal communities for centuries pre-contact. However, these traditional epistemologies of health and healing have been eroded through centuries of colonial oppression and the imposition of western scientific methodologies and legislation. Through decades of acculturation, much of the traditional knowledge of health, medicine and healing has been lost. However, a recent resurgence of traditional Aboriginal midwifery has occurred in an effort to retain, revive and restore the indigenous knowledge of Aboriginal communities. The revival of traditional Aboriginal midwifery has resulted in the development of Aboriginal birthing centres that blend traditional knowledge, medicine and healing practices with contemporary medical services, to provide culturally significant maternal care services for Aboriginal women and families. Currently, there are Aboriginal birthing centres and services in, Nunavut, Quebec and Ontario. The high quality of community-based maternal care, access to culturally significant health services - utilizing traditional medicine and employing traditionally trained Aboriginal midwives has shown improved outcomes, impacting community healing, cultural revival, and community capacity building. The traditional methodologies employed by Aboriginal birthing centres will be detailed to exemplify the significance of indigenous knowledge and epistemologies of health in providing improved health care services to Aboriginal communities.
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 | 0.035 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".