MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406956876 · doi:10.1177/11771801241312854

Innu and Atikamekw women’s connection to the land through pregnancy and birthing practices

2025· article· en· W4406956876 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suzy Basile, Nathalie Kermoal, Ioana Comat, Hugo Asselin

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of AlbertaUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnection (principal bundle)PregnancyObstetricsPolitical scienceGeographyHistoryMedicineEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to offset the marginalization of Indigenous women’s knowledge, we used a qualitative participatory approach to co-construct the meaning of the pregnancy and birthing knowledge of Innu (Indigenous people in Quebec, Canada) and Atikamekw (Indigenous people in Quebec, Canada) women in terms of connection to the land. Through thematic analysis of interviews, we show that the women have maintained a deep connection to the land, even though they may not be practicing land birth anymore due to restrictions imposed by governments and the medical profession. Despite the invisibilization of their connection to the land, Innu and Atikamekw women still perceive it as essential to the expression of their identity and the well-being of their communities. They emphasized the importance of rematriation, which is restoring sacred matrilineal relationships between people and land, as a way to restore their roles and leadership within their communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207