MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319844115 · doi:10.1177/00916471221149101

Healing the Collective: Community-Healing Models and the Complex Relationship Between Individual Trauma and Historical Trauma in First Nations Survivors

2023· article· en· W4319844115 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Bookman-Zandler, Justin M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychology and Theology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistorical traumaScholarshipSpiritualityIndigenousContext (archaeology)PsychologyGriefPsychotherapistPosttraumatic growthAllianceSociologySocial psychologyGender studiesCriminologyHistoryPolitical scienceMedicineLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community-healing models (CHMs) are effective approaches in addressing intergenerational, historical, and racial traumas within American Indian–Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals, families, and communities. While medical models of healing and White evangelical scholarship have favored individual approaches to change, growing evidence in support of CHMs in outcome research and evangelical theology is presented. CHMs understand the importance of the context in which problems develop and are sustained and consequently are uniquely suited to address the systemic nature of historical trauma and how intergenerational and racial trauma impacts People of Color and Indigenous individuals (POCI). The application of sovereignty, spirituality, and communal grief for AI/AN trauma survivors is explored. The role of community in individual identity and healing is explored as a biblical theme by both prominent White evangelical theologians and POCI Christians. The efficacy of CHMs in treating trauma within AI/AN communities provides hope for restoration within other cultural groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychology and TheologySame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207