MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615589911

Protective Effects of Language Learning, Use and Culture on the Health and Well-being of Indigenous People in Canada

2013· article· en· W2615589911 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Onowa McIvor

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousIndigenous cultureEthnologyIndigenous languageColonialismSociologyPopulationGender studiesPolitical scienceEcologyLawDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional language and culture have an important role to play in Indigenous communities. Many communities assert that their language and culture is at the heart of what makes them unique and what has kept them alive in the face of more than 150 years of colonial rule. Studies have shown that although the health of Indigenous communities has improved over time, Indigenous people are still not faring as well as the general population (Health Canada, 2001; Young, 2003). But what role does the use of traditional language and culture play in maintaining health and reducing risk factors for health crises in Indigenous communities? This paper explores the literature discussing the protective effects of traditional language and culture on health outcomes for Indigenous people. Indigenous people continue to assert that language is the foundation for culture and without our languages, our cultures cannot survive (Battiste, 1998; Kirkness, 1998; Kirkness, 2002). This paper argues the time for action is now – to revive and hold high the indigenous cultures of this land, if for no other reason than for the tremendous potential they hold for the renewed and continued holistic health of Indigenous people. \n----- \nLa langue et la culture traditionnelle ont un rôle important à jouer dans les communautés autochtones. De nombreuses communautés affirment que leur langue et leur culture se trouvent au coeur de leur identité et de leur survie à plus de 150 ans de domination coloniale. Des études ont montré que, bien que la santé des communautés autochtones s’est améliorée au fil du temps, les peuples autochtones ne se portent toujours pas aussi bien que la population en général (Santé Canada, 2001; Young, 2003). Mais quel rôle est-ce que l’usage de la langue et de la culture traditionnelle jouent dans le maintien de la santé et la réduction des facteurs de risque pour les crises de santé dans les communautés autochtones? Cet article explore la littérature au sujet des effets protecteurs de la langue et la culture traditionnelle sur la santé des populations autochtones. Les peuples autochtones continuent d’affirmer que leur langue est le fondement de leur culture et de sa survie (Battiste, 1998; Kirkness, 1998; Kirkness, 2002). Cet article plaide en faveur de l’action: relancer et valoriser les cultures indigènes de ce pays, si ce n’est que pour leur énorme potentiel en santé holistique pour les peuples autochtones.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University)Same topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207