The TE RANGA TUPUA COVID-19 RESPONSE: the strength of Māori relationships and Iwi networks in Aotearoa New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Ko te pae tawhiti whāia kia tata, ko te pae tata whakamaua kia tina; seek to bring distant horizons closer and sustain and cherish those that have been arrived at”.
 
 This whakatauāki or proverb, from Dr Whakaari Te Rangitakuku Metekingi (LLD, CBE) of Whanganui and Ngāti Hauiti tribes reminds us that, while we must have a vision to aspire towards, we must also tend to the here and now, to the issues that are up front and close to home. It exhorts us to strengthen what has already been achieved and find ways of creating benefits for others. This paper presents the collaborative response to COVID-19 by Iwi (tribes) within Te Ranga Tupua (TRT), a collective of Iwi from the South Taranaki/Whanganui/Rangitīkei/Ruapehu regions of Aotearoa New Zealand. The research employs a mixed methods design, based on a Kaupapa Maori approach. The quantitative section identifies the population served and quantum of support provided, while the qualitative data presents the processes and associated learnings from the perspective of those tasked with the response. TRTs response to the threat of COVID-19 is shown to have been grounded in Māori values (tikanga), whānau (family) based and holistic, taking into account the mental, emotional, social, cultural and spiritual elements of safety and wellbeing, rather than just the absence or presence of the virus . The extensive relationships and networks that existed between tribes represented in the TRT collective were key to the timely distribution of care and support to Iwi members, to appropriate and relevant information dissemination and to the overall wellbeing of the people during the most difficult times of the COVID-19 response.
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 | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".