Counselling First Nations : experiences of how aboriginal clients develop, experience, and maintain successful healing relationships with non-aboriginal counsellors in mainstream mental health settings, a narrative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal people in Canada experience disproportionately high rates of family violence, suicide, substance abuse, and mental health problems such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. However, although culturally based healing resources for aboriginal people are inadequate to meet the need, available mainstream mental health services are underutilized by aboriginal clients. Therefore, while building on previous research looking at the problems faced by mainstream services and non-aboriginal counsellors in engaging and helping aboriginal clients, this research assumed there have been successes and examined aboriginal experiences of successful engagement and healing within such contexts. The methodology for this study is a narrative based approach that meets the mandates for ethical and appropriate indigenous research as described by those of authority in the field of indigenous research, and answers the question: How do aboriginal clients develop, experience, and maintain successful healing relationships with non-aboriginal counsellors in mainstream mental health settings? Narrative analysis of interviews with seven aboriginal mental health clients who believed they had a positive counselling experience in a mainstream setting produced findings that suggest common themes of interaction and discovery mark successful counselling relationships. Generally clients described an increased sense of connection and belonging, harmony, integration of traditional aboriginal and non-aboriginal practice and beliefs, self-acceptance, understanding, and balance as critical. However the defining characteristic of a successful counselling experience was expressed as the capacity of the counselling relationship to increase each client's clarification of how aboriginality is meaningfully and uniquely understood. These findings have implications for mainstream mental health services and indigenous research in general.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".