Services and Indigenous Healing Practices to Address Intimate Partner Violence Against Indigenous Women in the Canadian Prairie Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed method study used qualitative secondary analysis to explore the experiences of 40 Indigenous women from the Canadian prairie provinces who were abused by their intimate partners. It focuses on the services that they accessed, including violence against women shelters, second stage shelters, community counselling agencies, and traditional healing practices. The original research was a four-year longitudinal tri-provincial study exploring intimate partner abuse in 665 women, 91 of whom completed in-depth interviews. Of the 40 Indigenous women, 35 were heterosexual, and 5 were LGBTQ Two-Spirit, thus two of the abusive intimate partners were female. Consistent with the literature the male partners (55% of whom were Indigenous, and 45% were White) physically assaulted the respondents so severely that the women were injured and could, perhaps, have died. Almost half of the men (47.4%) used sexually coercive strategies and/or sexually assaulted the women. A considerable amount of background information placed the women’s use of IPV services in context: 90% had experienced childhood maltreatment; the 10 women who lived on reserves all raised concerns regarding community violence, while 40% of the women from urban areas also noted this. In contrast to the literature, the women were not, on average, experiencing severe mental health distress. The women’s resilience is highlighted: they were committed to improving their lives through accessing multiple sources of assistance. Across counselling services, the women found the support helpful, although their critiques emphasize issues related to colonialism and systemic oppression. Of concern is that it was not clear whether mainstream counsellors were educated in or had any understanding of Indigenous history or cultures. The critiques of Indigenous programs/services indicate the legacy of colonialism through instances of internalized oppression. Nor is it clear whether community counsellors had any training/understanding of IPV. The importance of traditional healing and cultural practices is highlighted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".