“Aboriginal isn't just about what was before, it's what's happening now:” Perspectives of Indigenous peoples on the foods in their contemporary diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion materials for Indigenous peoples generally recommend that Indigenous people incorporate more “traditional” foods into their diets, referring to foods that are hunted, fished or gathered from the local environment. Little scholarly attention has focused on which foods Indigenous peoples themselves consider to be traditional, or the socio-cultural significance of their contemporary food patterns. The purpose of this project was to hear the voices of Indigenous peoples about the significance, meanings, and values of foods they eat, and what they consider to be traditional foods. Participants self-identified as Aboriginal people living in or near Terrace, BC were asked to photograph everyday foods, which were then used in semi-structured interviews. Themes identified in preliminary analysis were shared with seven of the original participants in a focus group. Key issues included barriers to access and use of locally gathered foods, and concerns about environmental contaminants in wild food. Participants spontaneously spoke of food in terms of health, but had to be prompted to discuss traditional food. While locally gathered, fished and hunted foods were clearly seen as traditional, the status of other foods was more contested. Case studies of specific foods revealed how participants imagined traditional foods, and also how these were combined with store-bought foods in inventive ways to produce culturally-significant fusion or hybrid foods. Our findings reflect the vibrancy and resilience of Indigenous cultures, and suggest that we reconsider some of the dominant assumptions that inform research and health promotion activities targetting Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".