MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415647477 · doi:10.32799/ijih.v21i1.45615

Nurturing Métis Youth Wellness: Kehtêyak Perspectives on Identity, Community, Spirituality, and Wholistic Connection

2025· article· W4415647477 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Michelle A. Padley, Lisa Bourque Bearskin, Danielle Bergevin, Denise McCuaig, Bryce Mercredi, Patricia Ekland

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Indigenous Health · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of Victoria
FundersInstitute of Indigenous Peoples' HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacs
KeywordsIndigenousPromotion (chess)PerceptionGrounded theoryKinshipWork (physics)Connection (principal bundle)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research inquiry explores the wisdom of Métis kehtêyak (the one who knows) to understand their thoughts, experiences, and perceptions in promoting wellness for Métis youth. Grounded in Indigenous Research Methodologies, the researcher met with eight Métis kehtêyak throughout the province to gain a deeper understanding of Métis ways of being, knowing, and doing in relation to wellness. Four overarching wellness themes collectively emerged, emphasizing identity, community, spirituality, and wholism. These findings informed the development of the community organization’s Youth Life Promotion Project through participation in the project’s Youth Leadership Kinship Circle to co-create wellness videos for the life promotion modules. This research provides a summary of the work needed to address the gaps in Métis mental wellness and knowledge driven by Métis kehtêyak.

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)0.001
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 score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Indigenous HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207