Exploring well-being in a First Nation community : a qualitative study / by Lana Ray.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations people hold the worldview that all human and non-human beings are interconnected. This worldview is imperative to the well-being of not only individuals, but to the community and land as well because it promotes certain values. It is these values which foster healthy relationships, and foster wellness. When an individual is connected to other human and non-human beings wellness is enhanced and when there is a disconnection wellness is deteriorated. This research will explore in greater detail, an \ninterconnected worldview as a framework for wellness in an Anishnaabe community and provide a deeper understanding of some of the factors that serve to connect and disconnect the individual. \nStudy area : Ginoogaming First Nation 300 km. northeast of Thunder Bay near Longlac, Northwestern Ontario (on the shore of Long Lake). Traditional languages Ojibway and Oji-Cree are spoken. The community is a member of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation and is a party of Treaty Nine (James Bay Treaty). Includes commentary on social and economic conditions, culture, tradition & traditional ways and ceremonies, the land and the individual, hunting, fishing, country foods, environment, spirituality, food, feelings of community, social problems like drug abuse, diabetes, health, etc.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".