“Looking after our own is what we do”: Urban Ontario Indigenous perspectives on juggling paid work and unpaid care work for adult family members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 7.8 million Canadians juggle paid work and unpaid adult/elder caregiving responsibilities. This balancing act can cause stress, financial burdens, strained relationships, and mental health issues for these employed caregivers. Employed caregivers who are Indigenous have unique challenges and perspectives when it comes to care and work, as our research demonstrates. Our project is part of a larger research project that informs the Canadian Caregiver Inclusive and Accommodating Workplace Organization's Standard (referred to as “The Standard” in this article) (Beckett, 2019). Ensuring that workplace standards are inclusive of Indigenous experiences is especially important because although Indigenous communities are the fastest-growing population in Canada, their experiences are often excluded or overlooked. Our research focuses specifically on Indigenous experiences of managing paid work and unpaid caregiving and takes place in the context of a local Indigenous Friendship Centre in an urban Ontario region. This research sought urban Indigenous perspectives on balancing employment and unpaid care work, yet much of what was shared by participants highlighted the differences that exist between Indigenous-led organizations/workplaces, and “mainstream” Canadian workplaces. What resulted was a robust discussion about a) the inherently accommodating, inclusive, and culturally responsive nature of Indigenous led organizations, and the vital role Indigenous organizations play in the wellbeing of urban Indigenous communities, b) the way Indigenous understandings of care can inform The Standard, and c) the unique circumstances that Indigenous employed caregivers face. Our research is guided by a methodological process that combines the team's experience with Indigenous methodologies and onto-epistemologies, community-based research, narrative methodologies, and feminist ecological onto-epistemological approaches to knowledge making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".