Perspectives on past and Present Waste Disposal Practices: A community-Based Participatory Research Project in Three Saskatchewan First Nations Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of current and historical waste disposal practices on the environment and human health of Indigenous people in First Nations communities has yet to be adequately addressed. Solid waste disposal has been identified as a major environmental threat to First Nations Communities. A community-based participatory research project (CBPR) was initiated by the Saskatoon Tribal Council Health and Family Services Incorporated to investigate concerns related to waste disposal in three Saskatchewan First Nations Communities. Utilizing a qualitative approach, we aimed to gain an understanding of past and present waste disposal practices and to identify any human and environmental health concerns related to these practices. One to one interviews and sharing circles were conducted with Elders. Elders were asked to share their perspectives on past and present waste disposal practices and to comment on the possible impacts these practices may have on the environment and community health. Historically waste disposal practices were similar among communities. The homeowner generated small volumes of waste, was exclusively responsible for disposal and utilized a backyard pit. Overtime waste disposal evolved to weekly pick-up of un-segregated garbage with waste disposal and open trash burning in a community dump site. Dump site locations and open trash burning were identified as significant health issues related to waste disposal practices in these communities. This research raises issues of inequity in the management of waste in First Nations Communities. It highlights the need for long-term sustainable funding to support community-based waste disposal and management strategies and the development of First Nations centered and delivered educational programs to encourage the adoption and implementation of waste reduction, reutilization and recycling activities in these 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".