Reflections from a Creative Community-Based Participatory Research Project Exploring Health and Body Image with First Nations Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, Aboriginal peoples often experience a multitude of inequalities when compared with the general population, particularly in relation to health (e.g., increased incidence of diabetes). These inequalities are rooted in a negative history of colonization. Decolonizing methodologies recognize these realities and aim to shift the focus from communities being researched to being collaborative partners in the research process. This article describes a qualitative community-based participatory research project focused on health and body image with First Nations girls in a Tribal Council region in Western Canada. We discuss our project design and the incorporation of creative methods (e.g., photovoice) to foster integration and collaboration as related to decolonizing methodology principles. This article is both descriptive and reflective as it summarizes our project and discusses lessons learned from the process, integrating evaluations from the participating girls as well as our reflections as researchers.
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 | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".