Cree youth, health (miyupimaatisiiun), and engagement in health planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous communities experience a greater burden of ill health than all other communities in Canada. In the Eeyou Istchee territory of northern Quebec, all nine James Bay Cree communities experience similar health challenges. In 2014, the Cree Board of Health and Social Services for James Bay (CBHSSJB) supported an initiative to stimulate local community prioritization for health change. While many healthcare challenges identified were specific to youth (defined as less than 35 years of age), youth's perspectives in these reports to date have been limited. We hence sought to understand how Cree youth perceived youth health and their engagement in health and health planning across Eeyou Istchee. As part of a CBHSSJB-McGill partnership, this qualitative descriptive study used a community-based participatory research approach. In collaboration with Cree community partners, ten Cree youth were recruited to participate in two focus groups, and five Cree youth coordinators were recruited to participate in key informant interviews. Thematic analysis was conducted; inductive codes were grouped into thematic categories. Cree participants characterized youth engagement in the following levels and capacities: participation in community and recreational activities; membership in youth councils at the local and regional levels; and, in decision-making as planners of health-related initiatives. Cree youth recommended greater use of social media, youth assemblies, and youth planners to further strengthen youth engagement and youth health in the region. Our findings revealed an interconnectedness between youth health and youth engagement; James Bay Cree youth described how they need to be engaged to be healthy, and need to be healthy to be engaged. Cree participants contributed novel and practical insights to engage Indigenous youth in health planning across Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".