Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of studies have shown that attempts to re-gain control over Indigenous identities attacked by colonialism, sometimes referred to as “decolonizing strategies” result in better mental health outcomes for Indigenous people (Chandler & Lalonde, 2008; Cornell & Kalt, 2007). However, this phenomenon has been less studied among urban Indigenous populations. Urban youth are of particular interest because they may be most at risk of grappling with their cultural identities due to the fact that they may not have the opportunity to come into contact with elders, extended family or community members to pass down cultural and spiritual practices, nor to learn about colonization and the importance of de-colonization. The research question is: “What is the role of culture among Indigenous youth living in Montreal?” This dissertation is an exploratory study using constructivist grounded theory. The mode of data collection for the study was semi-structured interviews with 20 urban Indigenous youth between 18-30 years old. An urban Indigenous youth advisory committee provided guidance to the project in order to respect the principles of ownership, control, access and possession. In general, participants expressed a desire to learn more about their cultures and languages and sought out ways to do so in an urban setting. Participants generally fell into two groups: those that wished to learn more about their cultures, whom I termed “identity building” participants and those that wished to maintain their cultural knowledge, whom I termed “culture maintenance” participants. Participants that were able to learn more about themselves, their identities and their cultures expressed feelings of pride and positive identity. Supports and barriers to identity building and culture maintenance are discussed, as well as implications for practice, policy and research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".