Anishinaabeg Elders’ Land-based Knowledge: Enacting Bagijigan for Health and Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Elders carry knowledge systems that are embedded within their respective land-based systems of knowledge. When Indigenous Elders pass away, their knowledge systems, if not preserved and documented, also pass away, which has lasting impacts on the continuance of Indigenous knowledge and practices of health and well-being. As a result of the enduring presence of settler colonialism, Indigenous Elders pass away at far earlier ages in comparison to their non-Indigenous counterparts. This article shows the results of an Indigenous health and well-being research project led by an Anishinaabe community in partnership with an Anishinaabe researcher. Guided by Anishinaabeg Elders and a Community Advisory Board, this research project preserves and documents Elders' knowledge of the land for community use and asks, how does knowledge of the land inform our health and well-being practices? In this article, we argue that Elders' knowledge is integral for regenerating critical well-being practices. We demonstrate that placing Elders' knowledge at the forefront of our well-being is an actionable practice of ganandawisiwin or good health. Without such knowledge and practices, we risk missing an opportunity to learn about well-being practices from our most precious knowledge holders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".