MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898105220 · doi:10.32799/ijih.v13i1.30306

Caregivers’ Perspectives on the Determinants of Dietary Decisions in Six First Nation Communities

2018· article· en· W2898105220 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lorrilee McGregor, Pamela Toulouse, Marion Maar, Nancy L. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Indigenous Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousFirst nationFishingSociocultural evolutionFood sovereigntyNarrativeFish <Actinopterygii>SovereigntyFocus groupPolitical scienceEconomic growthGeographySociologyFisheryBusinessFood securityEcologyEconomicsMarketingPoliticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colonialism is a fundamental determinant of Indigenous people’s health in Canada, yet little is known about its effects on food systems and dietary decisions in First Nation communities. A socioecological approach was used to explore the determinants of dietary decisions made by Indigenous caregivers. Conclusions are drawn from a narrative analysis of eight focus groups involving 33 caregivers in six First Nation communities. Caregivers identified the changes that they have observed in how food is procured, distributed, processed and prepared, along with the nutritional consequences and the sociocultural meanings of these changes. Determinants such as participation in the wage economy, low income, hunting and fishing regulations, availability of fish and game, and the proliferation of inexpensive, processed foods have altered the food systems and influenced dietary decisions made by caregivers in six First Nation communities. Initiatives such as community gardens, community freezers and community hunting camps are ways that these communities are seeking to regain food sovereignty.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Indigenous HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207