An exploration of the body pride experiences of young Aboriginal men and women in canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative description was to explore how Aboriginal youth in an urban center experience body pride. Body pride may be a predictor of health for Aboriginal youth and has been described as being connected to culture. Eight participants (four men, four women) that self-identified as Aboriginal and were between the ages of 20-25 years, participated in one-on-one interviews to describe their meanings and experiences of body pride. A qualitative content analysis highlighted five themes representing body pride: (a) the body as a changing "vessel," (b) body pride as a practice, (c) traditional activities that foster body pride, (d) challenging westernized body stereotypes and the marginalization of native peoples, and (e) body pride and male views of masculinity. This research contributes to the literature by highlighting Aboriginal youth's meanings of body pride and describing how to foster body pride while affirming Aboriginal cultures and identities.Acknowledgments: The project described in this paper was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC, grant number 430-2012-0239) of Canada and a Research Award by the Office of the Vice President (Research) Special Fund, University of Alberta. The authors would like to thank the participants who shared their knowledge and contributed their time and effort to this project.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".