Understanding Indigenous Canadian Traditional Health and Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research study is situated within an Indigenous research methodology. The goal of the research was to develop an in-depth understanding of traditional healing from the perspectives of practitioners of traditional healing. It was important to explore the experiences of practitioners of traditional healing because there continues to be a lack of literature on this subject, as well as a significant lack of understanding and awareness about traditional healing and Indigenous Canadian people in mainstream society. The theoretical underpinnings of this research are holism and the four aspects of the self, visually represented in the Anishnaabe medicine wheel.\nIn-depth audio-recorded interviews were conducted with 16 Indigenous people who self-identified as traditional people who use the ceremonies, medicines, teachings and Elders from their cultures in their healing work. Each participant was approached in a traditional Anishnaabe way, with tobacco in red cloth. The research questions explored their experiences as practitioners and recipients of traditional healing methods.\nThe themes that emerged from the research articulate an in-depth understanding of traditional healing. The themes are grouped under eight categories: defining health and healing, the source of problems, the qualities of healers, guidelines for effective helping, the process of healing, integrating traditional and western methods, selfgovernment, and the strengths/limitations of traditional healing. The process of healing was the largest category of themes and it included groups of themes related to focusing on the self, giving back, using traditions, and sustaining wellness. The themes are discussed in light of the literature review on traditional healing and implications for social work research and practice are identified.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".