Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregiving has various connotations within diverse social and cultural settings. Within First Nations communities, caregiving may be understood as a central practice of reclaiming cultural identity and teachings from colonial systems of healthcare. Our community-based participatory research project explored the experiences, needs, and strengths of caregivers within the Mohawk Nation of Kahnawake in what is currently called Canada. Through a partnership with a local cancer support group and a local hospital, we recruited six caregivers to create digital stories of caring for others living with cancer in the community. We then screened and discussed the significance of the digital stories with community members at a world café event. The resulting themes of caregiving emerged from community responses: (1) gifts and teachings, (2) being there, being present, and (3) circle(s) of care. We discuss these themes and the community’s recommendations for strengthening and sustaining community-based caregiving in Kahnawake.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".