First Nations Communities at Risk And in Crisis: Justice and Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that colonialism is far too often overlooked or dismissed in designing security and justice remedies in First Nation communities. Yet, as a process of domination, colonialism has proven destructive to the peoples of the world who have suffered colonization. For First Nations peoples in Canada, the colonial regime has applied pressure against their cultures, practices and traditions. In naming colonialism as a major and central source of harms, models for the future must address systemic structures of colonialism. A decolonizing approach is highly challenging both for the individuals who take these steps and for the communities who undertake collective transformations. Healing means setting out on un-walked paths to decolonization. The paper’s framework starts with examining the current stressors for First Nation communities at risk or in crisis. Reviewing the currently published findings on justice and security related stressors, this research paper looks closely at: on-research health, education, poverty reduction and social assistance, child welfare, youth gang issues, policing services, crime rates, and safety of health workers. The research finds that Aboriginal traditions and approaches to health, healing, knowing, and doing can exist within other institutions and frameworks, to help alleviate community stressors. The authors of this study outline five decolonizing recommendations for ways to move forward in building models for the future; then, provides practical advice on how to build preventive and proactive community plans, support community capacity and infrastructure, build relationships, and model positive development.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".