Responsible Representation and Collaboration in Supporting Indigenous Maternal Health in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Honouring the sacredness of pregnancy, childbirth, and the early postpartum period has long been held as integral to the strength and celebration of Indigenous families and communities in Canada. Although the impacts of oppressive settler colonial systems have strained the connection to and practice of traditional approaches to these reproductive life stages, there are immense efforts under way by Indigenous midwives and women and birthing parents to restore and reclaim what had been lost. With an awareness of historical and current conditions of Indigenous maternal health, I explored how to best situate myself as a white settler anthropology researcher and maternal health practitioner, and how to support Indigenous maternal health in an anti-racist, anti-oppressive, and culturally safe manner. \n \nOver the course of my research, I had the honour of interviewing a number of highly respected Indigenous scholars, midwives, and community leaders across Canada to seek their guidance and insights about how I can responsibly represent and partner with Indigenous midwives and women and birthing parents, as well as the role and extent of the impact of having shared identity in the provision of culturally safe care. With honest self-knowledge of being a settler Canadian, critical understanding of how settler colonial systems and structures continue to harm and disenfranchise Indigenous women and birthing parents, and a commitment to equal, respectful relationships, there is the potential for robust, healthy partnerships with Indigenous practitioners to champion Indigenous maternal health in Canada.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".