An Opportunity for Healing and Holistic Care: Exploring the Roles of Health Care Providers Working Within Northern Canadian Aboriginal Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this qualitative study was exploring what the roles and challenges of health care providers working within Northern Canadian Aboriginal communities are and what resources can help support or impede their efforts in working toward addressing health inequities within these communities. DESIGN: The qualitative research conducted was influenced by a postcolonial epistemology. The works of theorists Fanon on colonization and racial construction, Kristeva on semiotics and abjection, and Foucault on power/knowledge, governmentality, and biopower were used in providing a theoretical framework. METHODS: Critical discourse analysis of 25 semistructured interviews with health care providers was used to gain a better understanding of their roles and challenges while working within Northern Canadian Aboriginal communities. FINDINGS: Within this research study, three significant findings emerged from the data. First, the Aboriginal person's identity was constructed in relation to the health care provider's role of delivering essential health services. Second, health care providers were not treating the "ill" patient, but rather treating the patient for being "ill." Third, health care providers were treating the Aboriginal person for being "Aboriginal" by separating the patient from his or her identity. The treatment involved reforming the Aboriginal patient from the condition of being "Aboriginal."
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".