Engaging Numbers: Developing Health Indicators that Matter for First Nations and Inuit People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses citizen participation in the development of community-level health and capacity indicators with a specific focus on processes that can be used to engage community members in indicator development. It is based on work that the authors completed with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) in 2002 and work they have been conducting in partnership with the Prince Albert Grand Council (PAGC) and Athabasca Health Authority (AHA) in northern Saskatchewan.The latter project developed tools for First Nations health organizations to assess the impacts of their health and social service programs on community wellness and capacity.The project included a critical review of existing community-level population health indicators and indicator frameworks, the identification of gaps in the literature related to culturally appropriate community health indicators, and the utilization of a process by which these indicators might be implemented and tracked by First Nations health organizations at the community level. In addition to the results of our work to date,we highlight some of the literature that specifically addresses Aboriginal conceptions of community health and community capacity along with an assessment of gaps in the literature in the context of culturally appropriate indicators.We conclude by discussing the processes that we have used with Inuit health groups and community-based First Nations health organizations in identifying culturally appropriate and relevant community health and capacity indicators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".