Issue 1: Giidosendiwag (We Walk Together): Creating Culturally Based Supports for Urban Indigenous Youth in Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, as elsewhere in the country, there are limited Indigenous-specific resources to assist in strengthening Indigenous youth, families, and communities. We explore how that might be changed by using the Anishnaabeg Youth in Transition Program at Niijkiwendidaa Anishnaabekwewag Services Circle, based in Peterborough, Ontario, as one model of service delivery. Niijkiwendidaa is situated in the traditional territory of the Mississaugas, one of several Anishnaabeg nations, and falls within the Williams Treaty area. We demonstrate how embedding culture in youth services greatly enhances the quality of life for youth now, and in the long term. We draw on these ideas and our integrative model to show how this approach can be both restorative and restitutive, providing it as an example that might meet the needs of other communities. With a view to acting on the recommendations highlighted in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, we propose that a rebuilding of relationships, and the cultural rooting of helping systems, are essential to raising our youth to become healthy, strong adults.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".