Indigenizing Academia: Student Reflections on Aboriginal Health Research in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractIn June 2000, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) introduced thirteen new areas for health research, including the Institute of Aboriginal Peoples' Health (IAPH). Fourteen years later, four students involved with Aboriginal health research reflect on their graduate experiences with this CIHR initiative.ResumeEn juin de l'an 2000, les Instituts de Recherche en sante du Canada (IRSC) creerent treize nouveaux domaines de recherche en sante, y compris l'Institut de la sante des Autochtones (ISA). Douze and plus tard, quatre etudiants meles a des recherches sur la sante des autochtones revoient leurs experiences d'etudiants aux cycles superieurs touches par cettte initiative de l'IRSC.IntroductionIn June 2000, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) introduced thirteen new areas for health research, including the Institute of Aboriginal Peoples' Health (IAPH). The mandate of this institute included the advancement of a national Aboriginal health research agenda through innovative research projects focusing on community collaboration for change.Out of this IAPH initiative, the Aboriginal Capacity and Developmental Research Environments (ACADRE) centers were created, later becoming the Network Environments for Aboriginal Health Research (NEAHR) centers in 2007. The nine NEAHR centers across the country served to build capacity in Aboriginal health research by developing human resources and supportive environments for community research projects, graduate researchers, and other academic initiatives (CIHR 2011).Indigenizing Graduate EducationThe Aboriginal health initiatives made available through the NEAHR program offered opportunities for funding, research involvement, mentorship, and community and student gatherings. These activities marked a significant departure from the environments we were accustomed to in Western academia. The environment modeled for most graduate students in Canada is one based on a few simple tenants, including the infamous law of publish or perish, as well as academic competition among colleagues. The social order within these Western institutions is based on a hierarchy of authority and prestige, with grant money and publications as currency. Often relationships between students and their supervisors are impersonal and lack a degree of emotional safety required for authentic mentorship that encourages student development, both personally and professionally.Still, this academic model of does not resonate with all students and instructors across all disciplines, communities and cultures. For instance, students and instructors who conceptualize career from an Aboriginal paradigm have a competing set of core values based on an acceptance of diversity in both thought and skill. These individuals value respect, humility, honesty and truth, as well as a sense of collectivity among peers. It is not difficult to see how many students, especially Aboriginal students, can feel out of place in traditional academic settings where a sense of community is lacking, as noted in recent research findings in the area of educational psychology (Stewart 2009).Fortunately, the NEAHR coordinators across Canada worked diligently to ensure that events such as the annual graduate student gathering and other regional conferences followed a new model of academic sharing. Interactions among students and researchers were built upon respect, partnership, and mutual benefit, fostering a sense of belonging and support for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. These meetings also brought together students across various health disciplines. This type of interdisciplinary collaboration marked another innovative practice embedded in the IAPH-NEAHR vision.These authors attended one such IAHP gathering: the 2008 Summer Research Institute in Halifax, Nova Scotia, held by the Atlantic Aboriginal Health Research Program (AAHRP), one of the NEAHR centers. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".