MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981430518

The Elders speak about the best interests of a Stó:lō child: family, connection and culture

2024· dissertation· en· W6981430518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousBest interestsGovernment (linguistics)Traditional knowledgeThematic analysisMeaning (existential)LegislatureBest practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to recent legislative changes by the Government of Canada many Indigenous nations are engaged in the development of legal and practice frameworks to regulate culturally safe and equitable child and family services. To support this process there is a need to define the best interests of the child according to the nation based on cultural knowledge and traditions. Storywork, an Indigenous storied approach, is used to examine the question, “How do Stó:lō people define the “best interests of the child” based on the cultural, linguistic and governance structures of their nation?” Drawing on Indigenous literature and the history of child welfare in Canada affirms that culture is central to developing Indigenous based services. A series of sharing circle discussions with Stó:lō Elders from the Coqualeetza Cultural Education Centre and the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Children and Family Services Society were held to gather their life-experience stories. The Elders’ unique worldview and understanding of the teachings of a good Stó:lō life were central to mobilize community-based Indigenous knowledge on child-rearing in the past and present that centers the teachings of our ancestors. Thematic analysis was then used as a way to make meaning from the Elders’ life-experience stories to create new knowledge informing what is in the best interests of the Stó:lō child. As a result, a Longhouse Framework was created using four-story poles representing new stories of child well-being. These story poles include: 1) How children experience and understand shxwelí (life spirit); 2) Children learn the ways of co-reliance; 3) Families and communities care for their children; and 4) Raising children in healthy Stó:lō ways. This knowledge will be used to inform better practices for those working in the field of Indigenous child welfare and offer recommendations for communities which are moving towards self-determination in the area of child welfare.

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)0.003
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 score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207