Walking-With Wellness: Understanding Intersections of Indigenous Literacy and Health Through Podcasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Have you ever seen a doctor and been sent home with forms and pamphlets to read and fill out? Reading and writing in English is a key skill for patients to access quality health care in Canada. Recent research demonstrates that patients with low print literacy face greater barriers when accessing and navigating the health system (Rootman and Ronson 2005). Indigenous people often meet greater challenges and, on average, experience poorer health (Loppie Reading and Wien 2009). How do Indigenous people with low print literacy experience the health system? In this research project set in lək̓ʷəŋən territory (Victoria, B.C.), Bungi-Metis student researcher, Lydia Toorenburgh, seeks to amplify the voices of Indigenous people with low print literacy to understand the barriers and challenges they face as well as their strengths and calls to action for the health system. The methodology includes walking-with, kiyokewin, collaborative editing, podcasting, beading, and incorporation of ceremony, and was designed to raise up these underrepresented voices. Lydia embarked on six walking visits through locations the research partners identified as important to their health. Each walk was audio-recorded, collaboratively edited, and made into podcasts. By creating podcasts, the research partners’ voices and knowledges are centralized, amplified, and conveyed untranslated by the researcher. Through collaborative editing and a beading circle, research partners had greater control over their knowledges and narratives. Research encounters were carried out with the Cree-Metis value turned research method, kiyokewin / the visiting way (Gaudet 2019), to share and create knowledge in a relational, culturally relevant manner. The powerful words of these community members help us better understand how low print literacy impacts the quality and accessibility of health care for Indigenous patients. Sharing stories of racism, intergenerational trauma, and clashing worldviews alongside those of resilience, intergenerational healing, and community care, these six knowledgeable storytellers have much to teach all listeners.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".