Urban Aboriginal Health: Issues, Culturally Appropriate Solutions and the Embodiment of Self-Determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban Aboriginal health and health-related issues are steeped within the sociohistorical, sociocultural, and sociopolitical experiences of Aboriginal peoples since European contact. Thus, urban Aboriginal health issues are very complex in that they consist of aspects associated with collective as well as individual cultural and political life experiences. Therefore, in order to adequately address Aboriginal health issues a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach is required. This study examines how Anishnawbe Health Toronto, an urban Aboriginal community health centre, addresses the specific healthcare needs of the urban population through a multidisciplinary culturally appropriate healthcare model. As my research evolved, a few themes emerged from the data. First, the health issues experienced by the clientele were inherently complex and simultaneously infused with a culturally collective and individualistic quality. Second, practitioners acknowledged and addressed the complex nature of the clients’ health problems through a unique model of health care created at the centre. Third, the philosophy, infrastructure, and model of health care at Anishnawbe Health Toronto goes beyond the notion of merely offering access to both systems of health care, and instead constitutes an innovative and culturally appropriate system of care which is under Aboriginal control, development and implementation. Therefore, through my analysis of these themes, I conclude that the model of health care developed at the centre is an example of complex solutions designed to address complex Aboriginal health issues and as a result, facilitate the embodiment of self-determination in the area of health care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".