MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6922090813 · doi:10.7939/81953

Onîkihikomâwiwin (Parenthood): Researching and Understanding Approaches to Raising Children in Alexander First Nation

2025· dissertation· en· W6922090813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Robotics and Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousParticipatory action researchRaising (metalworking)Context (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)First nationCulturally appropriatePositivism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To be evidence-based, practices, programs, decisions, and policies aimed at supporting parents and families must be based on the best existing evidence on parenting within the context of individual factors, including culture. Parenting research has a history of being positivist and based on Eurocentric and Western samples, conceptualizations, theories, ways of knowing, and ways of being. Although research suggests that some aspects of parenting are universal, the form and function of parenting behaviours and dimensions have been found to vary across cultures. In Canada, Indigenous peoples, families, communities, and cultures have persisted through and been impacted by historical and ongoing colonization, forced assimilation, cultural genocide, and systemic racism. Indigenous children and families are overrepresented in child welfare systems and there are few culturally safe parenting programs whose effectiveness has been researched, thereby perpetuating these cycles of harm. Although high-quality research on Indigenous parenting that avoids deficit-theorizing and blanket statements is growing, more research is needed to build our understanding of the unique parenting approaches, strengths, and needs in diverse Indigenous communities. Such research can help inform and reform existing practices, programs, decisions, and policies affecting Indigenous families. However, to ensure the research and its results are valid, meaningful, and ethical, the research must itself be culturally safe by being done with, by, and for Indigenous communities based on their epistemologies, ontologies, axiologies, and methodologies. This dissertation consists of two papers describing the processes and results of an Indigenous community-based participatory research (CBPR) study on child-rearing in Alexander First Nation (AFN) from the perspective of eleven community members. The overarching purpose of this dissertation is to share the community’s approach to research and child-rearing, with the hope that (a) the knowledge generated in this study can be used by AFN to support the children, youth, and families in their community, (b) the research processes can provide a case example to parenting researchers of how research understanding Indigenous child-rearing can be conducted, and (c) the knowledge can add to a literature base on Indigenous child-rearing that can play a role in changing harmful and systemically racist practices, programs, decisions, and policies. The first of the two papers focuses on the processes of the research study. It provides an overview of the history of research done on Indigenous peoples, including in parenting research, followed by a brief review of CBPR and Indigenous approaches to research. Then the processes (including successes, challenges, and reflections) of the current Indigenous CBPR study are described including building relationship with the Alexander Research Committee (ARC) and AFN community, designing the study, recruitment, data generation, Indigenous thematic analysis processes, and knowledge mobilization. The second paper focuses on the results of the study. The study aimed to answer the following three research questions: 1. What are the cultural and traditional beliefs, values, and practices related to child-rearing and child development held and used by the people in AFN? 2. How do these beliefs, values, and practices reflect strengths and developmentally-supportive child-rearing in AFN? 3. How has colonization and intergenerational trauma impacted the intergenerational transmission of traditional child-rearing practices in AFN? Tipi teachings received from people within AFN were used as the study’s guiding Indigenous theorizing. The Indigenous CBPR approach included relational sampling, interviews with each of the 11 participating individuals (all of whom identified as women) based in the conversational method, and Indigenous thematic analysis. Four themes emerged, thematically represented by a tipi: (a) Defining Tipi Pole Roles (Mothering); (b) Cooperation Between the Poles, the Environment, and the Land (Community Approach to Raising Children); (c) The Hide (Supporting Child Development); and (d) Maintaining a Sturdy Tipi (Healing Intergenerational Trauma). These findings capture the strengths and developmental support present in the approaches to child-rearing in AFN, which will be mobilized to benefit the community in partnership with the ARC.

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)0.003
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicEducational Robotics and EngineeringFrench-language works237,207