Through our own eyes : a study of healing as elucidated by the narratives of First Nations individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For some Aboriginal people, healing is a relatively new word that seems to have emerged and taken on a life of its own only after the 1990 Mohawk Crisis and the ensuing Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP, 1996). In spite of the massive 4000-page RCAP report, some mainstream authorities (Brasfield, 2001) still believe that the meaning of Aboriginal healing has not been fully explained. In this study, an attempt will be made to widen the meaning of Aboriginal healing by examining ancient Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse) philosophy, historical cultural upheaval, and narratives from First Nations survivors of Indian residential schools and a Holocaust survivor. The results have shown a connection between Aboriginal healing and Canadian society. Healing can only occur if the wound is not continuously reopened such as when long-standing land claims remain unsettled, Indigenous language and culture programs are neglected, and a People are ignored.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".