Kiyokewin: Urban Indigenous Kinship-Visiting Methodology Approach for Urban Indigenous Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My research presents urban Indigenous kinship-visiting as a methodology, analytical lens, a deliberative approach and forum. An Indigenous kinship-visiting approach emphasizes the second step of R v. Gladue: how the legal community responds to the collective harms against Indigenous peoples and the present-day rehabilitative healing needs that colonialism has created. My research demonstrates an urban Indigenous kinship-visiting approach is beneficial to ensure a more thorough implementation of the Gladue decision and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In bringing to bear an Indigenous kinship-visiting approach, I focus on Cree, Métis, and Saulteaux laws including: wahkotowin (laws of kinship relationships) and kiyokewin (laws of visiting). Through these Indigenous legal principles, I suggest a viable urban Indigenous kinship-visiting procedural and deliberative approach. An Indigenous-led kinship-visiting approach assists urban Indigenous youth to connect and build kinship relationships with the urban Indigenous community. My case study focuses on urban institutions serving Indigenous youth in Toronto: Aboriginal Legal Services and the Aboriginal Youth Court. They represent two institutions that are visiting with each other to improve the healing services to urban Indigenous youth. Both urban institutions respond to the unique needs of urban Indigenous youth and both are committed to connecting urban Indigenous youth with Indigenous-led talking circles and wellness programs. The intention is for urban Indigenous youth to feel a sense of belonging within the urban Indigenous community. The success of the Aboriginal Youth Court lies in the healthy partnership with, and informal transfer of jurisdiction to, Aboriginal Legal Services to provide Indigenous-led consensus-based deliberation and healing options. Finally, based on the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I consider future Indigenous Law Institutes where unique Indigenous juridical systems and urban Indigenous kinship-visiting approaches can be respected.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".