MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081589660 · doi:10.1080/01459740.2012.714822

Transformative and Restorative Processes: Revisiting the Question of Efficacy of Indigenous Healing

2013· article· en· W2081589660 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Anthropology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningIndigenousPsychotherapistOutcome (game theory)SociologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of the efficacy of 'traditional' Indigenous healing often fail to consider the epistemologies that underlay specific healing traditions, especially intrinsic notions of efficacy. In this article, I critically engage the concept of efficacy by identifying two somewhat different approaches to the issue of outcome. In 'transformative' healing processes, healing is conceptualized as a journey in which the outcome goal is a transformed individual. Efficacy, then, is about incremental changes toward this goal. In 'restorative' healing processes, the goal is termination of the sickness and the restoration of health; efficacy is conceptualized as a return to a presickness state. These healing processes are illustrated with examples from the Q'eqchi Maya of Belize and Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it