Fostering a Culture of Connection: Creating School Counselling Programs That Can Help Segue Reticent Indigenous Youth and Their Families to Community Supports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the historical trauma (HT) and adverse effects of the assimilation policies of the Canadian government, Canada’s Indigenous peoples suffer more physically and mentally than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Beyond the mental health challenges they face, Indigenous youth and their families face many barriers to supports within schools and within the community. It is imperative that school and community staff become culturally-competent in order to provide treatment that is "culturally meaningful and ecologically valid" (Zane et.al, 2016, pp.4-5). and trauma-informed; that is, a "strengths-based framework" that understands the impact of trauma \non survivors (Ministry of Child and Family Development, 2010). Counsellors both in the school and in the community should adopt a Two-Eyed Seeing approach; that is, an approach that combines the Westernized client-centred therapy promoted by Carl Rogers with the traditional ways of knowing, learning, and healing of Indigenous communities. By combining Westernized and Indigenous approaches, Indigenous youth can experience more success in school and increase their physical and mental health. With trust and collaboration, school and community partners can help Indigenous individuals access supports within the school and beyond. Based on extensive research of Indigenous peoples' histories and cultures, I present a proposal to the school district in which they can respond to the TRC's Calls to Action by implementing strategies that involves engagement with external partners – Indigenous parents, elders, and community members – to have a positive impact on student outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".