Eeyou/Eenou community voices on ‘ <i>doing’</i> Miyupimaatisiiun (wellness) planning: An occupational transactional perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is the second of ‘twin’ papers centering community participation in Miyupimaatisiuun (wellness) planning within the Eeyou Istchee (Northern Québec James Bay Cree) context. We present and discuss the results of a community-based study that took place over the course of 4 years (2016-2020). Data were collected through 13 visits to four communities, 22 individual conversation-based interviews with local members of Miyupimaatisiiun (wellness) Committees (MC), 50 hours of community-based activity observations, informal brief interviews, and documents related to MC planning activities. Data analysis was grounded in an occupational transactional perspective encompassing local and regional contexts with which MC members coordinate their intentions and actions to plan for community miyupimaatisiiun. Our first manuscript (Lévesque et al., 2022) presented study results on the meaning of community participation in wellness planning. This second paper predominantly addresses the processes of ‘doing’ Miyupimaatisiiun Committee participation. Three themes are presented and discussed: Connecting local entities, Positioning the local Miyupimatisiiun Committee, and Wearing multiple hats. These results help describe and understand community participation as occupational transaction with the effects of colonization and with coloniality, that is, settler forms of knowledge and ways of doing, as participants bridge community sectors and collectivize local entity resources and efforts toward community miyupimaatisiiun. Ways forward for local Cree governance and regional entities hoping to better support community engagement and mobilization for wellness planning, are proposed. Though research results will be of interest to a broad audience, particular relevance to occupational science is emphasized, in terms of occupational transactionalism and coloniality.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".