Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tells the stories of 16 Aboriginal women of how they promote their health, as well as the health of their families and communities. There is a focus on the definition of health using a medicine wheel depiction and the determinants of health that are currently recognized by Health Canada. Four additional determinants were identified by the women in this study and a discussion regarding each is included. This study was viewed through a feminist lens. The qualitative method used was women-centred interviewing of a convenience sample of 16 Aboriginal women residing in rural Manitoba. Content analysis of the verbatim transcripts revealed the following themes and sub-themes: health defined- lifestyle choices; physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual health; healthy self; 1 need to be me - the importance of self care - promoting my health; having faith; hopes and dreams; barriers to being healthy - shame; racism; addiction; domestic violence; abuse; teenage pregnancy; poverty; promoting health in my family - healthy family; taking care of my children; perceived social supports; and promoting health in my community, it takes a community to raise a child - healthy community; strong leadership; employment, housing, education and safety; and lack of available services. The categories are identified in Health Canada's determinants of health with the exception of: faith, social equality, healthy partner relationships and strong community leadership. Implications for nursing education and practice, policy and research are discussed. There are 10 recommendations for future consideration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".