Keeping children safe in Anishininew ways: St. Theresa Point First Nations Okimimaak Grandmothers’ wisdom in response to the colonial violence and genocide against their children and families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Grounded within Peace and Conflict Studies, this study examines the colonial violence and genocide against St. Theresa Point First Nation children and families and the peacebuilding options that can be found through the knowledge of some of their Okimimaak (Grandmothers). After generations of loss of losing children and grandchildren to the colonial Indian Residential Schools and the child welfare system, the goal of this research is to provide an opportunity for Okimimaak to voice their knowledge through Indigenous and participatory research supported by a document review of the applicable aspects of the relevant laws in relation to and contrast with how their grandchildren can be raised safely and healthy within their Anishininew ways. Okimimaak wisdom articulates how their traditional forms of caring for children can be a peacebuilding alternative to the structurally and culturally violent Child and Family Services system which has touched every family through loss of children, fear of it oppressing their lives, and its impact on parenting. Through Okimimaak lives of resistance, resurgence, and resilience, an example of Anishininew peacebuilding is identified. The wisdom shared from Okimimaak with this researcher is honoured as valid in its own right, and then placed in context with the researcher’s theoretical foundations, professional experiences, and a document review of Canada’s Indian Act (1876), Manitoba’s Child and Family Services Act (1997) and Canada’s An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (2020). This presentation of their wisdom can be an initial step forward to a larger integrated interpretation of the Okimimaak experiences within Peace and Conflict Studies and the wider academic realm.
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 | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".