Métis women gathering: visiting together and voicing wellness for ourselves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the limited research by Métis women, and with Métis women, this article focuses on the impact of Métis women gathering for the purpose of sharing Métis women’s knowledge. The aim of our research is to learn Métis women’s perspectives, specifically the ways in which gathering and visiting together affects our wellness. The geographical focus was specific to kinship systems along the South Saskatchewan river, near St. Louis, Saskatchewan. This land/river place was chosen given our shared family connections to this area. We applied Métis-specific research methodologies, epistemologies, and pedagogies, including the importance of gathering with Métis women in our homes and on our land. Our community-engaged and visiting methodology included mixed-methods, such as participant engagement, evaluation forms, ceremony, gatherings, semi-structured interviews, and learning-by-doing. The research demonstrates that through Métis women visiting, gathering, and sharing Métis women’s cultural and spiritual knowledge, Métis women experienced a greater sense of wellness. The findings focus on key themes, including (a) Importance of Métis women gathering together; (b) Visiting is changing; (c) Learning-by-doing and kinship; (d) Métis women’s gatherings, community, and wellness; (e) Métis-specific spaces to share stories; and (f) Pride in Métis women’s identity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".