MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963486273 · doi:10.7748/nr.21.6.39.e1253

A clash of paradigms? Western and indigenous views on health research involving Aboriginal peoples

2014· article· en· W1963486273 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Researcher · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPossession (linguistics)Government (linguistics)Public relationsHarmResearch ethicsTraditional knowledgeSociologyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To explore the issues of data management and data ownership with regard to health research conducted in aboriginal or indigenous populations in Canada. BACKGROUND: Research with aboriginal communities in Canada has often been conducted by researchers who had little or no understanding of the community in which the research was taking place. This led to 'helicopter' research, which benefitted the researcher but not the community. National aboriginal leadership developed the ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) principles, which outline how to manage research data regarding aboriginal people and to counteract disrespectful methodologies. However, these principles present their own set of challenges to those who would conduct research with aboriginal populations. DATA SOURCES: Documents from the Assembly of First Nations, the Government of Canada, Aboriginal writers and researchers, and Nursing theorists and researchers. REVIEW METHODS: This is a methodology paper that reviews the issues of data ownership when conducting research with Aboriginal populations. DISCUSSION: The authors explore indigenous and Western views of knowledge development, outline and discuss the OCAP principles, and present the Canadian Institute of Health Research's guidelines for health research involving aboriginal people as a guide for those who want to carry out ethical and culturally competent research, do no harm and produce research that can benefit aboriginal peoples. CONCLUSION: There are special considerations associated with conducting research with Aboriginal populations. The Assembly of First Nations wants researchers to use the Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) principles with First Nations data. These principles are restrictive and need to be discussed with stakeholders before research is undertaken. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE/RESEARCH: In Canada, it is imperative that researchers use the Canadian Institute of Health Research Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People to ensure culturally sensitive and ethical conduct during the course of the research with Aboriginal populations. However, some communities may also want to use the OCAP principles and these principles will need to be taken into consideration when designing the study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it