<i>Peyakohewamak</i> —Needs of Involved Nehiyaw (Cree) Fathers Supporting Their Partners During Pregnancy: Findings From the ENRICH Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to understand the needs of involved Nehiyaw (Cree) fathers who supported their partners during pregnancy. We used qualitative description and a community-based participatory research approach. We carried out in-depth semi-structured interviews with six Nehiyaw fathers. Four also participated in photovoice and follow-up interviews. All data were content analyzed qualitatively. Fathers felt they had to support their partners and overcome challenges resulting from intergenerational colonial impacts (residential schools particularly) by reclaiming their roles and acknowledging the pregnancy as a positive change. Providing support was possible through their own strong support system stemming from family, faith, culture, and a stable upbringing with positive male role models and intact Nehiyaw kinships. Perinatal programming did little to include fathers. Attempts to improve perinatal care and outcomes should allow more inclusion of and support for Indigenous fathers through genuinely incorporating into care traditional culture and Elders, families, flexibility, cultural understanding, and 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".