Indigenous perspectives on health: Integration with a Canadian model of practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommend change within the Canadian health care system, respecting and valuing Indigenous health and healing practices. Adjusting the lens through which occupational therapists practice to incorporate Indigenous views of health and wellness is one potential change. PURPOSE.: This critical interpretive synthesis of the literature incorporates Indigenous perspectives on health and wellness into the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) framework, strengthening that model to better serve all peoples in Canada. KEY ISSUES.: Integrating Indigenous worldviews can add to the CMOP-E the importance of balance among physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental health; the inseparability of person, community, and land; and understanding occupations as dimensions of meaning. These are incorporated in a proposed integrated model (ICMOP-E). IMPLICATIONS.: Effectively integrating Indigenous perspectives may be an important first step in a longer journey toward engaging more respectfully with Indigenous perspectives on health and wellness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".