"They Seem to Want to Help Me": Health, Rights, and Indigenous Community Resurgence in Urban Indigenous Health Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At least 52 percent of the Indigenous population of Canada lives in cities (Statistics Canada, 2017a), yet urban Indigenous experiences continue to be underrepresented in both research and policy (Place, 2012; K. Wilson Young, 2008). Health care policy in particular is jurisdictionally complex for Indigenous people living in urban areas, leading urban Indigenous people to have limited options for culturally safe health care. Indigenous people living in urban areas frequently report negative experiences in health care settings, often associated with discrimination based on Indigenous identity (Browne et al., 2011a; Evans, White, Berg, 2014). Indigenous-led health organizations are one way that urban Indigenous communities have developed of counteracting such difficulties. This dissertation uses qualitative methods, grounded in principles drawn from Indigenous and decolonizing research, to examine the everyday experiences of Indigenous clients in health care settings in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada. Interviews and focus groups involving 50 Indigenous community members and 15 health services workers were conducted in 2015-2016. Intent on investigating the connections between urban Indigenous peoples’ inherent rights and Indigenous peoples’ experiences accessing health care, this research also draws on the growing body of literature on Indigenous community resurgence. It is guided by the following question: How does the work of Indigenous-led health organizations, in the context of settler colonialism, bring together Indigenous rights and Indigenous community resurgence for Indigenous community members in urban areas? Discussions about how to improve Indigenous people’s experiences in health care rarely touch on Indigenous rights, in spite of the fundamental importance of rights to self-government and self-determination to the health of Indigenous individuals and communities (Greenwood, de Leeuw, Lindsay, Reading, 2015). This study examines how discourses of rights, relationships, and resurgence come together in Indigenous-led health organizations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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".