Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples in Canada have suffered from ongoing impacts of colonization. The topic of Indigenous health is wholistic and intricate, spanning from individual to kin, to land, economy, socialization, and all things. Such intricacies have been impacted by colonial systems wherein many have left their traditional land bases and communities to pursue other opportunities or to flee circumstance on their home territories. This paper uses Indigenous methodologies to collect qualitative data on the experiences for some First Nations peoples connected to the Tillicum Lelum Aboriginal Friendship Centre, on Vancouver Island when relocating off-reserve. Elders were selected as the sample based on the traditional perspective of knowledge and wisdom. As a result, six common themes from experiences were connection, way of living, education and employment, colonialism, land, and quality of health care. Further, axial coding found four action-based themes to be applied from the research. Racism, relevance, restrictions, and resources created the ‘Four R’s’ as recommendations for larger health systems in British Columbia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.020 |
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".