It’s Not Our Way: Navigating the Principle of Dual Relationships as a First Nation Practitioner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations and Eurocentric approaches in the field of psychology and mental health are rooted in different worldviews which creates incongruencies as to what may be deemed as effective standards of practice. This autoethnography describes the experience of a school psychology intern navigating through practice particularly as it pertains to the principle of dual relationships. With a first-person perspective the journey of exploration into this matter brings together the research found in academia and the guidelines formally set as well as the beliefs and values of local community members which were brought forth through a series of interviews and conversations. There are three main themes which arose that are highlighted and they are the embodiment of a spiritual orientation, substantiation of trust and integrity, and obligation to community. These themes explicate the differences in and implications for practice when working with First Nations people, particularly in remote spiritually connected communities. The practice of psychology in and with First Nation people needs to be rooted in their beliefs, values, and customs to be effective, to reflect the experience of Indigenous ways of helping, and to decolonize approaches in the field of psychology.
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 | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".