MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768338038

An examination of the integration processes of Anishinaabe smudging ceremonies in Northeastern Ontario health care facililties.

2017· dissertation· en· W2768338038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy Shawanda

Bibliographic record

VenueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryHealth careGeographyEthnologyAncient historyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In part of the Anishinaabek storytelling traditions, ceremonies emerged from the
\nteachings from the simple act of offering tobacco to more complex ceremonies such as
\nthe rain dance. The smudging ceremony is no different because it has its own creation
\nstory that emerged with the four medicines (Benton-Banai, 1988; Geniusz, 2009). This
\nresearch aims to contribute to the an understanding of how the Indigenous smudging
\nceremony takes place and how it is made available to individuals who want to practice
\nthis form of ceremony in urban health care settings.
\nThere has been limited research conducted on Indigenous ceremonies and even
\nless on the smudging ceremony, which highlights the literature gap on scholarly souces
\non these traditional ways of healing written by Indigenous People. Most of the
\ninformation on the smudging ceremony is from online sources, Elders that are not
\npublished, and non-Indigenous people. Although there are many books, how-to manuals,
\nand kits that provide medicines that teach interested individuals on the smudging
\nceremony, these could be found in the New Age healing sections at bookstores or in
\nalternative healing shops that many would not find to be a credible academic source.
\nNone of these sources address why the smudging ceremony is crucial and how it has been
\nsuppressed as part of a much larger process of cultural genocide.
\nThis research is situated within an historical context to better understand why the
\nceremony has not been accessible within these health care facilities. There are three
\nfacilities examined in Sudbury and Parry Sound, Ontario. The facilities and policies are
\ncompared to understand the integration processes as well as ensuring that the smudging
\nceremony is more accessible. In addition, the contribution of this thesis is to have the
\nsmudging ceremony accessible and accommodated outside the walls of medicine/healing
\nlodge rooms. Lastly, this study is examined through the Anishinaabe perspective that
\ncomplements the decolonization approach as it recommends meaningful pathways that
\nsupport the efforts of reconciliation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University)Same topicVietnamese History and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207