Indigenous Mental Health: Imagining a Future Where Action Follows Obligations and Promises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers what it would mean if Canada fulfilled select existing commitments and obligations concerning the mental health needs of Indigenous peoples, as identified through current programs and recent jurisprudence: that is, where would we be if Canada carried through on existing commitments? After identifying the role of law in perpetuating poor mental well-being, it assesses programs for First Nations and Inuit peoples and determines they are unlikely to be effective without operational changes and responsive funding. The article then turns to the situation of Metis and non-status First Nations and the implications of Daniels v. Canada for changing the status quo – both by requiring appropriate mental health supports, and by dismantling the racist legal logic that has long undermined the mental well-being of non-status First Nations and Metis persons, by positioning them as not counting as true Indigenous peoples. The article concludes that merely fulfilling current state obligations could bring considerable short-term gains, and some long-term gains, for the mental well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| 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".