A process of healing for the Labrador Innu: Improving health and wellbeing in the context of historical and contemporary colonialism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of the negative effects of historical and contemporary colonialism on the Labrador Innu, healing initiatives grounded in self-determination, renewal of cultural practices, and non-reliance on Western bio-medicine, are known, taught and widely practiced among the Innu. The value of Indigenous healing practices in the treatment of Indigenous people is well-recognized in Indigenous wellness literature, yet non-Indigenous health practitioners know little about healing processes. Moreover, to our knowledge, no studies have examined any contemporary Labrador Innu healing process. The main aim of this paper is to describe the process of healing among the Innu. Although there may be multiple processes of healing, we shed light on a major process that emerged from interviews and focus groups with 39 participants. Five stages of healing were described: being "under the blanket"; finding spiritual strength; extending hands out; finding strength and power; and helping others. Findings highlighted enablement of healing through spiritualities, support from Elders, return to culture, and resistance to negative stereotypes. We provide health professionals with valuable information for considering Innu healing as a model that expands their views for the benefit of Innu seeking mental health services. Implications for non-Innu health and social service providers are about broadening their understanding of the significant role of self-determination among Innu, learning Innu ways-of-knowing and being, recognizing one's own biases, and acknowledging the power imbalances between themselves and Innu people.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".