Up North They’re Talking Sex: A collaborative and community driven model for sexual health knowledge mobilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address high STI rates in their aboriginal communities, the Tłı̨chǫ of the Northwest Territories adopted a collaborative participatory research approach to sexual health based on four key stages of development. First was community initiation and engagement, where local leaders identified a priority need and began community discussions around sexual health. Secondly, identifying that existing government statistics did not provide them with adequate information, the Tlicho Community Services Agency partnered with the University of Alberta and CIETcanda to conduct a baseline study in all four Tlicho communities, designed and administered by community-based researchers. Third, a community action research team (CART) developed evidence-based interventions and partnered with local community health researchers and public health personnel. The fourth phase included a follow-up evaluation of the CART activities and ongoing community-led action planning based on the results from the surveys. Key elements contributing to the success of the community based participatory research approach include community readiness, community and researcher collaboration, local evidence-based planning, and ongoing capacity building and monitoring. The process has led to an increase in interdepartmental collaboration, and the development of culturally relevant knowledge translation resources. Key to continued success is the sustainability and transferability of the CART approach to other priority concerns, and the strengthening of integration within the various programs to ensure continuing collaborative interventions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".