Tapping into Anishinaabe wellbeing: illuminating a journey in Shebahonaning (Killarney) through principles of autoethnography.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewing the colonial history of Canada, and particularly that of the province of Ontario, serves to provide a greater understanding of the health inequities that impact Anishinaabe communities and people today. After the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850 in Ontario, policies have continued to be developed and implemented with the intent to displace and assimilate Anishinaabe people into the Euro-Canadian culture. The Integrated Life Course and Social Determinants of Aborigi- nal Health Model defines policies and legislation such as the Civilization Act, Enfranchisement Act, and Indian Act as examples of distal determinants of health, with historical, political, social, economic, and holistic health impacts on Indigenous people and entire communities. There is a need for further research on health inequities and dispossession of culture and land in Indigenous communities in Canada. My major paper focuses specifically on the historical colonial events and policies that have impacted the holistic health of the Anishinaabe people and community of Shebahonaning (now widely known as Killarney), Ontario, Canada. The approach weaves a health and history literature review with principals of autoethnographic research as I include re- flections and storytelling through the historical conversations I have had with my maternal Grandparents at their Sugarbush. Tapping into this visceral knowledge and lived experience through oral tradition serves to illuminate a better understanding of the Anishinaabe well-being for myself and families with similar experience. The wider implications of colonialism and pol- icy on Anishinaabe identity is addressed and shared, with specific recommendations to improve holistic health outcomes in the community of Shebahonaning; and with consideration of the im- plications for other Indigenous communities in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".