Fostering Relationships, Connections, and Health in Kenhte:ke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded in relational worldviews, Indigenous health once thrived. However, colonization disrupted and delegitimized Indigenous relationships, having devastating impacts on Indigenous health and contributing to persistent Indigenous health disparities. Making matters worse, Indigenous Peoples face barriers to engagement in mainstream Canadian healthcare, including racism and the marginalization of Indigenous relational conceptions of health and ways of caring. As a Kanyen’kehá:ka (Mohawk) healthcare provider in my own community, the goal of my research was to explore Kanyen’kehá:ka relational ethics of care between community members, and how these ways of relating shaped relationships and engagement in community-based healthcare. To do so, I used Kanyen’kehá:ka relational methodology grounded in the Ohén:ton Karihwatéhkwen (Thanksgiving Address) and community visits (n=25). Research demonstrates that healthcare grounded in Indigenous conceptions of health are more likely to bring about health improvements in Indigenous populations. However, there remains scant literature in the Canadian context of Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives of receiving community-based care from members of their own community; my research makes a contribution to this field. Participants illuminated that community healthcare relationships grounded in connection and shared conceptions of health and care facilitate greater engagement in care, and for some, motivated improved self-care. Further, by using an Indigenous resurgence approach, this research provides insights into the multifaceted potential of community-based healthcare to reproduce and fortify collective health promoting and protecting practices and perpetuate shared identity as a Kanyen’kehá:ka community. During the early stages of research, the need for a culturally appropriate community research ethics protocol that asserts community autonomy over research was voiced in community. As such, a corollary goal was to develop a preliminary framework for a research ethics protocol in Kenhté:ke, informed by community conversations (n=12), worldviews and values. The findings of this exploration revealed the centrality of relationships, connection, and responsibility to who we are as a community, which will provide the basis for a culturally continuous research ethics protocol moving forward. Through the resurgence of our knowledge systems, including our own conceptions of health, our unique health promoting and protecting practices, and our ethical values, we can nurture strong community relationships and connection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".