Childhood adversity and coping among Indigenous university students in Canada: Considerations when examining adverse childhood experiences.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with health-risk behaviors and chronic disease development. Although valuable, conventional ACE surveys may fail to adequately capture the range of adversities that some communities experience. The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether First Nations and Metis postsecondary students and staff in Ontario identified domains of ACE not captured by conventional ACE surveys. In addition, this study aimed to identify potential coping strategies or factors. METHOD: Qualitative interview and focus group methodologies were used; notably, we integrated aspects of the nominal group technique with elements of First Nations Sharing Circles. The data were thematically analyzed and organized by their impact as perceived by participants. RESULTS: Sixteen First Nations and Metis participants (ages 21-38) shared five additional domains of ACE: historical trauma, lack of infrastructure and public services, household and community dysfunction, gender-based adversities, and racial discrimination. Four domains of coping strategies and factors were identified: healing from trauma, improving cultural connections, strengthening social networks, and developing skills and knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need to appreciate the sociological and historical experiences of communities, not just individuals, when surveying ACE among Indigenous youth. Specifically, when surveying ACE in Indigenous populations, measures should be expanded to include historical trauma, lack of infrastructure and public services, gender-based adversities, and racial discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".