Community-based sport research with Indigenous youth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is critical need to better understand how to enhance sport participation among Indigenous youth and how to provide sporting\nopportunities in ways that contribute positively to health and wellness. The purpose of this paper is to describe our attempts to �deeply engage�\nIndigenous youth in sport research via a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach. Specifically, we describe how a range of qualitative\ndata generation techniques have been used in our research, that is focused on exploring how communities can support sport opportunities for Indigenous\nyouth in Edmonton, Alberta. Our program of research, which included the use of one-on-one interviews, sharing circles, and photovoice, provides\ndirection for utilizing collaborative research approaches that respect Indigenous youth as equal partners in sport research. Furthermore, findings from\nour research have provided in-depth insights into the experiences and meanings of sport for Indigenous youth, and contributed to furthering\nunderstandings of the necessary processes that are foundational to engaging in relevant and respectful sport research with Indigenous youth
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".