Indigenous Conceptions of Well-Being: Rejecting Poverty, Pursuing Mino-Bimaadiziwin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to conventional metrics, such as the low-income cut-off and social assistance rates, Indigenous peoples in Canada have disproportionately high levels of poverty. But what does poverty mean from an Indigenous perspective? Drawing on data from the Poverty Action Research Project (PARP) - a five-year partnership between academic researchers, the Assembly of First Nations, and five First Nations communities in different regions of Canada seeking to reduce poverty and improve community health - this paper examines the relational and subjective aspects of poverty and well-being. Our analysis of PARP communities' discussions of poverty and actions to address it suggests that poverty is seen through the lens of what the Anishinaabek call Mino-Bimaadiziwin, which describes "living well" in a holistic, multidimensional, and community-centered sense. Interventions to address poverty therefore would be better framed as initiatives to enable the pursuit of a good life, as Indigenous people understand it, and must consider not only the economic impacts, but also the interrelated environmental, political, intellectual, social, emotional, spiritual, and cultural dimensions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".