"All we need is our land" : an exploration of urban Aboriginal homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores Blackfoot homelessness in relation to traditional attachments to Blackfoot territory.It addresses the underlying causes of Blackfoot homelessness in the city of Lethbridge.It speaks to the participants' experiences of loss on a multitude of levels, disconnection from family and traditional community, and the complex notion of what "homelessness" means for the Blackfoot participants.The thesis uses a literature review to inform the study.The research methodology is a focused ethnography.Interviews with Blackfoot homeless participants were conducted at the city of Lethbridge's homeless shelter in 2009 and 2010.Narrative analysis was used to interpret the data and the findings, and the subsequent discussion of them, were from a Blackfoot perspective.It is hoped that the information contained within this thesis will help those reading it to better understand Native homelessness and provide insights into the subjective nature of what it means to be "home."The results of the findings also suggest ways for service providers to develop improved programming aimed at the Native homeless population.Resiliency ……………………………………………………………………... Interventions …………………………………………………………………...
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".