Our People, Our Health: Envisioning Better Primary Healthcare in Manitoba First Nation Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing the right of self-determination of Indigenous Peoples is essential to improving the state of community-based primary healthcare of First Nations in Canada. Understanding communities’ priorities and local health agendas is critical for primary healthcare transformation. We used a community-based participatory research approach to engage our partners: Nanaandawewiwgamig, the First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba, and eight First Nation communities. Community-based research assistants conducted 183 in-depth interviews in their respective First Nations. Key themes that emerged from these interviews include primary prevention focused on health and social determinants; an integrated healthcare system providing access to both Western and First Nations traditional health knowledge; infrastructure improvement; youth engagement; healthcare leadership; investing in community-based human resources; and promoting culturally respectful, responsive, geographically sensitive, and outcomes-oriented care. Policy approaches could implement some local priorities with direct impact on healthcare, while other social determinants will create indirect, albeit critical, conditions for health and healthcare changes over time.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".