Should Aboriginal Healing Traditions Be Integrated into Urban Medical Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Should Aboriginal healing traditions be integrated into urban medical facilities? In spite of public and academic interest in bringing the two systems together, existing research on the topic shows how difficult integration would be due to historical/political, practical, and philosophical challenges. Not surprisingly, logistical measures for implementing the task have yet to be formalized. Based on 3.5 months of ethnographic fieldwork in a western Canadian city, this thesis explores what health administrators, people who use Aboriginal healing traditions, and people who practice Aboriginal healing traditions think about integration, and examines how attitudes within and about health care influence participants' views. Mobilizing anthropological concepts about biomedicine, bodily ways of knowing, sensorial dimensions of healing, and multiculturalism, I argue that prevailing attitudes, assumptions, and relations of power within health care culture, when combined with historical/political, practical, and philosophical challenges, seriously encumber the integration process. In conclusion, I suggest that Aboriginal healing traditions should only be integrated into urban medical facilities where health care providers and other staff relinquish the attitudes, assumptions, and relations of power that the biomedical paradigm upholds.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".