Inuit wellness: A better understanding of the principles that guide actions and an overview of practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By imposing non-Inuit ways of doing within households and communities, colonization has created a rift between generations and impacted the transmission of Inuit practices and knowledge. Inuit care-providers continue to support their fellow community members with individual and collective approaches to wellbeing. The objectives and design of the current project were developed with community members who play an active role in mobilization and wellness. Inuit and non-Inuit research assistants conducted 14 individual interviews and 2 group interviews (total of 19 participants) with key informants involved in community wellness work. Then an Elder (third author) shared her knowledge regarding traditional practices. In this study we describe three underlying principles regarding wellness practices as well as five approaches and the mechanisms by which these approaches seem to impact personal and collective wellbeing. This study highlights how Inuit culture and knowledge can support children, family and community wellbeing in the ways of being together and of taking care of each other. The study responds to an expressed desire named by our partners to document Inuit approaches as well as the principles and practices underlying such approaches and how they are related to self-determination.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".