Rewriting HerStory: Aboriginal Women reclaim education as a tool for personal and community, health and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education has long been recognized as the key to increased self-esteem, socio-economic status, and financial independence. However, historically in Canada, education has also been an institution associated with pain and suffering for many Aboriginal people, their families, and their communities (Stonechild, 2006). Frequently this suffering contributed to the propagation of a variety of forms of abuse–often impacting the family and community in negative and harmful ways (INAC, 1996a). Far too frequently these abusive behaviours became cyclical– repeating through the generations. Lowered self-esteem, lack of confidence and sense of worth often translated to dismal educational and career successes; leading to a life fraught with poverty, addictions, disease, and young mortality (INAC, 1996b). The purpose of this study was to examine the role that education could play in the lives of Aboriginal women, as it has been acknowledged that women hold the reins for the well-being of the family and the community (Julien, Zinni, & Wright, 2009). Further, to examine what the experience of education has been in these women's lives to better understand the role that counsellors/psychologists, educators, and other helping professionals can have to encourage retention and completion of educational pursuits. The study employed a qualitative method called: Aboriginal Research (Kenny, 2000) where research is conducted by a series of rituals and in the form of story sharing. Nine women shared their stories of how they navigated the demands of academia to overcome the barriers of previous abuse, racism, poverty, and hopelessness to experience mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. They identified the main catalyst for returning to school as a desire to create a better life for their children and contribute to the well-being of their community. These women reclaimed education as a tool for healing and strength; a model which could offer hope to other marginalized populations. Further this study identified a number of ways that helping professionals can contribute to this process.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".