“You belong to everyone” : urban First Nations access to health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health status of Indigenous peoples in what is now known as Canada is a manifestation of its colonial systems. Legislation that defines Indigeneity, land base, resource allocation, and access to health supports perpetuate illness of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Despite efforts to reconcile such systems, many fall through the cracks. Upholding the importance of relationality between researcher and topic, this dissertation by portfolio uses Indigenous methods to explore experiences of First Nations people attached to the Tillicum Lelum Aboriginal Friendship Centre in Nanaimo. To mirror existing funding streams, small sample populations of First Nations people from Vancouver Island participated in qualitative data collection methods that upheld the tradition of storytelling as a form of knowledge exchange. This dissertation displays perspectives and experiences of participants in Nanaimo, which intersect with current province-wide models applied to the transformation of First Nations’ health in British Columbia. Using the traditional life cycle as a framework, four interdependent components created this dissertation bv portfolio. Those components were: A journal article manuscript, an impact assessment, a picture book, and this synthesis paper. Highlighting values of reciprocity, balance, and reflection, two portfolio components collected data while the other two documents showcase reciprocal accountability of the researcher. As a result, the dissertation by portfolio offers scoping, technical advice, opportunities for change with generations to come, and an example of Indigenous research at an applied, doctoral level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".