Indigenous Youth and Resilience in Canada and the USA: a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Relative to non-Indigenous youth, Indigenous youth have been under-represented when studying pathways to mental wellness. Yet, a broad range of adversity is acknowledged, from intergenerational and ongoing trauma arising from colonial policies. This scoping review explores resilience definitions, measures, key stressors, and what Indigenous youth identify as pathways to their wellness, based on quantitative and qualitative peer-reviewed literature in Canada and the Continental United States. Eight databases ( EBSCO , PsycINFO , Science Direct , Social Science Citation Index , Web of Science , PsycARTICLES , and EMBASE ) and hand searches of 7 relevant journals were conducted to ensure literature coverage. Two independent reviewers screened each article, with one Indigenous screener per article. The final scoping review analysis included 44 articles. In articles, no Indigenous term for resilience was found, but related concepts were identified (“walking a good path,” “good mind,” Grandfathers’ teachings on 7 values, decision-making for 7 generations into the future, etc.). Few Indigenous-specific measures of resilience exist, with studies relying on Western measures of psychological resilience. Qualitative approaches supporting youth-led resilience definitions yielded important insights. Youth stressors included the following: substance use, family instability, and loss of cultural identity. Youth resilience strategies included the following: having a future orientation, cultural pride, learning from the natural world, and interacting with community members (e.g., relationship with Elders, being in community and on the land). Indigenous traditional knowledge and cultural continuity serve as prominent pathways to Indigenous youth resilience. More research is needed to yield a holistic, youth-centered measure of resilience that includes traditional practices.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".