An articulation of the standpoint of peer support workers to inform childbearing program supports in Manitoba First Nation communities: institutional ethnography as de- colonizing methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cycle ofcontinuous crealion is the very basis ofrvhal we know as human beings.That's rvhy rve're on this planet (as Aboriginal people), to kep the vay ofthe teachings ofour original ancestors alive, to continue to do those things, our original instruclions.Birth is a paa ofall of that, and all the things we choose to \vork on as human beings are based on the gns that we receive rvhen rve come inlo this rvorld.There are teachings in that birlhing experience that can tell you about the purpose ofthat child's life... Based on the knorvledges from different medicine ways, you have an interpretive famework to use.That's essentialy what we're trying to maintain and build upon and carry rvith us as one ofthe lhings we use in our families so that our people can live (Cook,2000).However, in more modem times, childbearing health and wellbeing has swayed from one ofpersonal and community role and responsibility and the interconnectedness of life itselfto one entailing a complicated anay of medical assessment and risk intervention.Medical experts including obstetricians, family practitioners and nurses, as well as medical support \vorkers and./or paraprofessionals such as community health representatives, social 'vorkers and prenatal peer support workers deliver a web of programming aimed at 'roviding", "supporting", "empowering", "educating" and "building capacities of' women regarding pregnancy health and particnlarly proper nutrition and other lifestyle choices.The current protocol demands intervention by extemally trained professionals proflcient in the administration of westem scientific methodology and techniques and, oftentimes, skilled in the uses of complex and expensve technologies not accessible at remote community levels, fostering a never- ending dependency that promises end goals of self-sufficiency and health not obtainable tkough such means.The nedicalzaton of pregnancy and childbirth has received a considerable amount ofattention in the medical and social scientific literature.lNonetheless, a reality persists wherein childbearing is perceived and experienced as a medical event requiring extemal intervention.lnstitutional discourses describe Canadian First Nation women as a group ofpeople who share an inordinate disease burden and require the lion's share of medical intervention.Elders, midwives and other First Nation men and women refuse to agree with these perceptionsthey ask, where is the evidence that First Nation women and/or their infants are at greater risk than other women and infants in Canada?Of rvhat exactly are they at greater risk?Other eactions to medicalization policies and practices include the desire to be left alone to rebuild communities as per traditional/cultural values and imperatives and/or the need for support in the area of economic development rather than social assistance.My purpose in the present dissertation is to unravel system discourses in an effort to retrieve the 'truth' as it is lived and experience-articulated by First Nation women living in Manitoba First Nation communities today.The specific task of the study is to I For examples to lhis extensive and fascinating research, especially as it pefains to cooptation and control, cultural vs. medical issues and lvomen's rights ofpassage, please see the works of Betty Allne Daviss-putt and Lesley Paulette riting in the late 1980s on childbirth in tbe Canadian north.See also Chatwood-
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".