Self-determination in Health Care: A Multiple Case Study of Four First Nations Communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perceived level of self-determination in health care in four First Nations communities in Canada is examined through a multiple case study approach. Twenty-three participants from federal, provincial and First Nations governments as well as health care professionals in the communities of Blood Tribe, Lac La Ronge, Garden Hill and Wasagamack First Nations provided insight into the diversity of perception of self-determination in First Nations health care. The difference in definition between Aboriginal and the federal and provincial governments is a factor in the varying perceptions of the level of control First Nations communities have over their health care system. Participants from the four First Nations communities perceived their level of self-determination over their health care system to be much lower than the level perceived by provincial and federal government participants. The organization and delivery of health care is based on the location of the community, the availability of the human resources, the level of communication, the amount of community resources, and the ability to self-manage. The socio-political history including impact of contact, residential schools, and integration of Aboriginal worldview are factors in the organization and delivery of health care as well as the perceived level of self-determination that the community sees. The duration and intensity of contact influences how health care is organized as the communities become more familiarized with the biomedical model that most Canadians use. Having a holistic health care system that includes acknowledging the socio-political history, culture, language, worldview and traditional medicines is important to the four First Nations communities, but this has not been fully embraced in any of the communities. Despite their differences, all four communities are working toward self-determination that hopefully would result in an ‘ideal’ First Nations health care system which is holistic, cultural, spiritual, and interdisciplinary and ultimately lead to full management of the health care system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".