Culture, Policy, & Change: Exploring Community-Based and Policy-Design Factors Influencing Sustainable First Nations Housing Development and Community Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s federal policy for First Nations (FN) housing, and consequently, the housing itself, fails to foster sustainable, culturally reflective, and healthy FN communities. Based on Canada’s colonial past, cultural differences have played a central role in the development of FN housing and communities, and has contributed to the conditions that fail to promote well-being. As part of a broader research project on FN housing, my study examined community perspectives related to housing development. The project piloted an alternative approach for designing subdivision layouts and was conducted in partnership with two FN communities in Saskatchewan, Canada. A key focus of the research project was the potential application of co-design. Co-design aims to meaningfully include multiple perspectives in the design and development of future FN housing policy and projects. My mixed-methods research used Q-methodology to catalogue values and examine factors contributing to inadequate FN housing in Canada. The qualitative data provided contextual and cultural elements that communities wish to consider in future development and the quantitative data highlighted the community’s preferred housing layout designs. The data revealed that housing is a critical component among various aspects of individual and community well-being. Planning, inclusion, security, and access were some of the key themes from the data. From a sustainability perspective, multiple factors and policies must be addressed for sustainable FN housing and community development. Policy recommendations include compelling stakeholders and policymakers to explore the barriers and opportunities for enhancing community engagement in housing design while revising outdated perceptions of FN culture and community. The findings also informed reflection on methodology and highlighted key areas of importance for future study in a FN housing and community development context.
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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".