Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples’ health is often reported through physical health disparities and prevalence of chronic disease experiences. Western perspectives often quantify health by reducing it to a set of numbers using a bio-medical approach. Health for Indigenous peoples in Canada is experienced more holistically, through a broader concept of “being well”, which is achieved through relationships to other people, to the land and creation, and to our ancestors in the spiritual realm. Using this Indigenous lens, the notion of health is applied to the food systems and to healthy eating. Indigenous peoples maintain their health through accessing fresh, original and healthy foods on their traditional lands. In order do so, traditional food systems are composed of a network of complex relationships that include the physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual aspects of learning and teaching ways of the land as well as food skills. These relationships feed people holistically through the connection to the land and vice versa. Colonization has created numerous barriers for Indigenous peoples to be healthy on their own terms. There is a great deal of pain associated with food for Indigenous peoples as a result of starvation tactics during treaty negotiation processes, residential schools, nutrition experiments, and hunting and fishing laws which have impacted Indigenous peoples’ ability to eat original foods and maintain their health. The concepts of health and wellbeing, in the context of Indigenous food systems and cultures, should be adapted to serve the needs and represent the realities of Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.041 |
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".