The understanding of cultural inclusion among substance use and the Indigenous peoples based in Winnipeg, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis identifies the primary experiences of Indigenous people and their connection to personal substance use and cultural identities. The second approach identifies the need for appropriate Indigenous methods when recruiting with respect and trust. The third and final approach in this thesis has been to include the perspectives of those who are actively using and Indigenous Knowledge Keepers who are doing the work with regards to Indigenous who are actively using and how they involve them in cultural inclusion. The first aim is to identify the disconnection created by substance use between Indigenous peoples and their connections to cultural. The use of substances has been a barrier to the connection to cultural participation. The historical experiences and persistent ways of living are significant factors to the lack of practice or involvement in ceremonies. The second aim is accomplished through interviews with those in the community. The interviews were qualitative and followed by a narrative style of inquiry. Transcripts from each interview were restored into individual narratives. Themes from each narrative were then compared to the teaching of cultural inclusion and literature on substance use approach with respect to Indigenous peoples. The information gathered from participant stories demonstrates that there is more need for transparency within Indigenous communities and organizations to support Indigenous people in an inclusive way that does not follow a turn away practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".