Use of traditional Mi'kmaq medicine among patients at a First Nations community health centre.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The provision of complete, effective, and culturally sensitive health care to First Nations communities requires a familiarity with and respect for patients' healing beliefs and practices. PURPOSE: This study addresses one aspect of cross-cultural care by attempting to understand the use of Mi'kmaq medicine among patients at a community health centre and their attitudes toward both Mi'kmaq and Western medicine. METHODS: A questionnaire was completed by 100 patients (14 men, 86 women) at the clinic. The majority (66%) of respondents had used Mi'kmaq medicine, and 92.4% of these respondents had not discussed this with their physician. Of those who had used Mi'kmaq medicine, 24.3% use it as first-line treatment when they are ill, and 31.8% believe that Mi'kmaq medicine is better overall than Western. Even among patients who have not used Mi'kmaq medicine, 5.9% believe that it is more effective than Western medicine in treating illness. CONCLUSION: These results have implications for the delivery of health care to First Nations patients, especially in terms of understanding patients' health care values and in meeting the need to provide effective cross-cultural care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".