First foods as Indigenous food sovereignty: Country foods and breastfeeding practices in a Manitoban First Nations community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a concept and in practice, Indigenous food sovereignty (IFS) offers insights into the social, cultural, and environmental challenges of a deficient food system. The associated poor health outcomes of this system include infant and child health issues such as early childhood caries and childhood obesity, and are a grave concern in many First Nations communities. Extant research has failed to consider the role of infant feeding traditions as an element of Indigenous food sovereignty. Breastfeeding and country food (also called traditional food or cultural food) consumption among infants has been long practiced in First Nations communities, resulting in healthier infants. The research described in this article originated with a research project called the Baby Teeth Talk study (BTT). This is a community-based trial which is testing a pre-natal/post-natal behavioural and preventive intervention for early childhood caries (ECC) among pregnant First Nations women and their infants in urban and on-reserve communities in Ontario and Manitoba. In Norway House Cree Nation, located in northern Manitoba, research participants shared stories on the methods used by caregivers for oral health care, including breastfeeding promotion. This paper reviews the literature relating to IFS, breastfeeding and the introduction of country food to infants. Through the voices of grandmothers in one community in Northern Manitoba, Canada, we connect the introduction of country food and breastfeeding to the larger IFS movement and positive health outcomes for infants, and improve the conceptualization and practice of IFS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".