The Red River Cart Model: a Métis conceptualization of health and well-being in the context of HIV and other STBBI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Métis people experience health inequities and often face discrimination when accessing health services. Métis-specific services are limited, and pan-Indigenous approaches to health services fail to acknowledge heterogenous identities and distinct health needs of the Métis. This study explored a Métis response to HIV and other sexually transmitted and blood borne infections to inform public health services development for Métis people. METHODS: As part of the DRUM & SASH Project, this study used a community-based research approach which privileged Métis knowledges and processes. Three gathering circles were held in Alberta, Canada, with self-identified Métis individuals who had lived experience or intimate knowledge of HIV/hepatitis C or worked in HIV/HCV service provision. The gathering circle process integrated Métis cultural practices in discussions about Métis understandings of health. Gathering circles transcripts were used to inform the description of the model emerging through the dialogue. RESULTS: Twelve diverse Métis people participated in gathering circles. Participants identified 12 determinants of health and well-being grounded in Métis culture and imagery, including Métis medicine bag, fiddle, cart tarp, flag, Capote coat, sash, York boat, moccasins, grub box, weapons, tools, and stove. The Red River Cart Model, a Métis-specific model of health to guide service planning, was created from these discussions. CONCLUSION: The Red River Cart Model provides a holistic view of the determinants of Métis health and has potential as a collaborative client assessment resource for STBBI community health service providers. Additionally, this model may be helpful to other health service providers for developing Métis-specific/informed services and improving cultural safety for the Métis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".