Clinical perspectives on the integration of mainstream mental health approaches and traditional aboriginal healing practices.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of my thesis was to describe the perspectives of child and youth mental health clinicians on the integration of mainstream mental health approaches and traditional Aboriginal healing practices. Research participants consisted of four clinicians currently employed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, who have delivered services in the Northern region of British Columbia within the last twelve months. The literature review examined a variety of topic related areas, including: Cultural Safety Research Considerations Aboriginal Mental Health Mainstream Mental Health Approaches Traditional Aboriginal Healing Practices Integrated Mental Health Approaches and Considerations for Rural Practice. I applied a qualitative research approach, guided by the tenets of a constructivist lens. The process of examining my research findings involved the application of a Thematic Analysis approach. My research findings support the need for future research that would expand the scope and applicability of findings. These findings suggest that clinicians see the value of integrated approaches in both their practice and in outcomes for their clients. In addition, findings suggest that clinicians perceive the limitations of mainstream approaches as potential barriers to the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Implications related to the field of social work include the institution of organizational specific cultural safety training and shifts towards more flexible and collaboratively based service delivery structures. --Leaf i.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".