Turning around the intergenerational impact of residential schools on Aboriginal people: implications for health policy and practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the first wave of results from a study exploring the views and experiences of community-based stakeholders on improving care for pregnant and parenting Aboriginal people in Canada. The issue of poor access to prenatal care by Aboriginal women and families is viewed through a post-colonial lens within a historical and social location. This case study was guided by participatory research principles. Data were collected through exploratory interviews and small-group discussions. The sample comprised purposively selected community leaders, providers, and community members affiliated with 2 Aboriginal health-care organizations in a mainly rural region. Participants from all 3 stakeholder groups expressed the view that care should be based on an understanding of the priorities and experiences of the pregnant and parenting Aboriginal women and families themselves. Therefore the research question What are Aboriginal parents' views of the importance of pregnancy and parenting? was added to highlight the views and life experiences of Aboriginal parents. "Turning around" the intergenerational impact of residential schools was identified as pivotal to care. The results suggest that pregnancy and parenting must be understood as reflecting both the unique individual and family experiences of Aboriginal people and the intergenerational impact of residential schools as an instrument of collective violence and as a key factor in Aboriginal Canadians' inequitable health status and access to health services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".