Sacred Fire Gatherings and Indigenous Men’s Wellness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relatively little attention has been paid to Indigenous men’s health and wellbeing in the urban landscape and even less attention has been given to urban experiential land-based health and wellbeing activities for Indigenous men as they connect to masculinities. This paper is built out of findings from an experiential land-based research project that the authors developed to address needs pertaining to Indigenous masculinities and men’s wellbeing in Ontario, Canada. In collaboration with knowledge keepers and adhering to Anishinaabe, Nehiyaw, and Haudenosaunee cultural protocols, the authors organized bi-weekly sacred fire gatherings to bring men together in community. Once a month the participants received “teachings” about the fire, Indigenous masculinities, and Indigenous men’s wellbeing from Indigenous traditional knowledge carriers. The research team conducted semi-structured interviews with seven participants, with the facilitator and with the four knowledge carriers. One of the participants was a transgender man, and the rest were cisgender men. The themes that emerged from the interviews reveal the sacred fire as the heart of the health practice and possibilities the research team set out to explore. The sacred fires were literally and physically at the centre of the gatherings, and act as the central organizing theme of the results presented. From the experiences of the participants, the sacred fire is an example of way to create a space and an activity for men to gather a place to talk about Indigenous masculinities and wellness for Indigenous men in the urban setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".