Supporting the development of Inuit children in urban environments: What are the needs of Inuit families living in southern Québec?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Canadian Inuit children present more developmental vulnerabilities than other non-Indigenous children. Supporting the development of these children is therefore essential, especially in urban environments where the Inuit population is growing. This study aimed to identify the main resources used by Inuit families living in urban environments of southern Québec, (Canada) and to better understand their needs related to supporting the healthy development of their children. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 13 self-identified Inuit parents of at least one child aged 0 to 18 living in southern Québec. RESULTS: The study revealed that urban Inuit families primarily require support to meet their basic needs, ensure a safe family environment, promote their children's health, education, and socialization, foster the transmission of Inuit cultural and linguistic heritage, and, finally, enhance access to a culturally safe social environment. The study also revealed that despite living closer to a variety of resources intended to support their children's healthy development, families encounter significant barriers in accessing these resources. Moreover, families have specific needs that are often not adequately addressed by the resources currently available. CONCLUSION: The study highlighted that the needs of Inuit families extend well beyond support for skills acquisition in the various developmental domains. Supporting the healthy development of Inuit children therefore requires a coherent and intensive response to families' most urgent needs. In the light of such findings, there is a clear need to improve access to existing resources, as well as to develop Inuit-led services that are adapted to realities and specific needs of the families.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".