'Culture' as HIV prevention: Indigenous youth speak up!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the ways in which (a) Indigenous youth involved in an HIV intervention took up and reclaimed their cultures as a project of defining ‘self’, and (b) how Indigenous ‘culture’ can be used as a tool for resistance, HIV prevention and health promotion. Data were drawn from the Taking Action Project: Using arts-based approaches to develop Aboriginal youth leadership in HIV prevention. ‘By youth, for youth’ HIV education and awareness workshops were facilitated in six Indigenous communities across Canada, incorporating traditional and contemporary art forms to explore how youth perceived the links between structural inequality and HIV vulnerability. Over 100 youth participated, with 70 partaking in individual interviews to reflect on their experiences at the workshops. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using NVivo software. Indigenous youth understood culture as a complex construct that included reconnecting to land, body, history, community and ceremony. For many youth, being Aboriginal and participating in cultural activities was seen as important for intergenerational healing, empowerment, health and combatting HIV. Youth spoke excitedly of their attempts to reclaim their languages and cultures despite barriers. They also understood art as a medium for self-expression and as an important site of cultural evolution.Our project demonstrates that the incorporation of culture within health strategies is important for effective HIV prevention amongst Indigenous youth. Reclaiming Indigenous cultures, languages and ceremonies may help to nurture future generations, diminish cycles of victimisation and combat hopelessness by reconnecting youth to stories of resistance and survival.Keywords: Indigenous youth, culture, HIV prevention, arts-based research
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".