National Inuit Strategy on Research.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Strong public policies, informed by the best available evidence, can support optimal outcomes for Inuit that in turn benefit all Canadians. However, colonial approaches to research endure in Canada that prevent Inuit from making decisions about research activity in our homeland, such as setting the research agenda, monitoring compliance with guidelines for ethical research, and determining how data and information about our people, wildlife, and environment is collected, stored, used, and shared. In this time of reconciliation, research governance bodies, policies, and practices must be transformed to respect Inuit self-determination in Inuit Nunangat research. Advancing Inuit governance in research is imperative for enhancing the efficacy, impact, and usefulness of research for Inuit. This requires governments and research institutions to partner with Inuit representational organizations to implement engagement processes that respect the role of Inuit in decision-making when it comes to research involving our people, wildlife, and environment. This must occur at the regional, national, and international levels of Inuit governance. Since the 1990s, the Government of Canada has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for research taking place in Inuit Nunangat, which is the Inuit-preferred name of the geographic, political, and cultural region whose various descriptions include “the Arctic”, “North”, and “North of 60” – none of which accurately encapsulate the Inuit homeland. The current investments in Inuit Nunangat research reflect a biological-physical science research bias that diminishes the prominence and attention given to other Inuit research priorities, such as health and social science. Moreover, federal research funding eligibility criteria tend to exclude Inuit representational organizations from accessing funding as lead institutions or principal investigators. This coupled with the absence of a university in Inuit Nunangat contributes to the continued domination of Inuit Nunangat research by non-Inuit researchers based outside of Inuit Nunangat. The purpose of the NISR is to address these challenges through coordinated actions that enhance the efficacy, impact, and usefulness of Inuit Nunangat research for Inuit. The NISR is domestic in scope yet it also acknowledges the international dimension of research on Inuit Nunangat. The objectives and actions that ITK is committed to implementing in partnership with Inuit representational organizations, governments, and research institutions, fall within five priority areas: 1) Advance Inuit governance in research; 2) Enhance the ethical conduct of research; 3) Align funding with Inuit research priorities; 4) Ensure Inuit access, ownership, and control over data and information; and 5) Build capacity in Inuit Nunangat research. The interrelated, interdependent nature of these priority areas requires a holistic, coordinated approach to implementing actions and evaluating progress. The NISR is intended to reach the stakeholders, such as governments, academia, and other research institutions, involved in Inuit Nunangat research. Inuit have brokered positive, mutually beneficial relationships with researchers and are also undertaking research ourselves. There is growing recognition within the research community about the partnership role that Inuit must play in Inuit Nunangat research. At the same time, important transformations must occur at the policy level for Inuit to achieve self-determination in research. Through the NISR, ITK will build on these advances, utilize existing governance processes and broker new partnerships to meet the needs of Inuit in research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».