MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969334926 · doi:10.22329/cjpp.v3i1.8173

Decolonization: Resolving the Crisis in Indigenous Peoples’ Health Care

2023· article· en· W2969334926 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra Tomsons

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Practical Philosophy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousDecolonizationPolitical scienceHealth careEconomic growthDevelopment economicsEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When colonialism is invisible to the colonizer/settler, that one inevitably misdiagnoses the so-called “Aboriginal problem”. So, unsurprisingly, any proposed solution fails. Problems resulting from colonialism, including the health crisis in Indigenous communities, are so visible Canada cannot deny seeing them. Yet, the voices of Indigenous leaders, community workers, and scholars insisting Canada address colonialism to solve the problems fall on deaf ears. This paper argues that the justice requirement to address colonialism is not simply based in an Indigenous moral and legal perspective. Canada’s justice foundation is provided by liberal theory, and liberalism supports Indigenous solutions. Colonialism has made Indigenous communities unwell. Past assimilation and present reconciliation approaches to “curing” Indigenous communities fail because they ignore colonialism. Arthur Manuel and I demonstrate that only decolonization can heal Indigenous communities. Since the unjust relationship between Indigenous peoples and Canada’s has always been the source of the problems, a just relationship alone can fix them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.038
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Practical PhilosophySame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207