A shared voice: engaging First Nations and Inuit communities in the development of culturally appropriate asthma and allergy education materials and resources for youth and their families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The prevalence of asthma and associated allergies is higher in First Nations and Inuit communities than in the general Canadian population. The main project purpose was to assess the relevance of existing asthma education materials and resources to First Nations and Inuit communities, and identify how these materials could be adapted to be culturally appropriate. Materials and methods Three sources of data were used to compile the findings. First, 68 asthma assessment packages and questionnaires were completed by Aboriginal community members. Second, five webinars with 56 participants in total were conducted. Third, an Advisory Group was created to discuss potential barriers to receiving asthma education. Results Aboriginal community members valued interactivity, visual features of materials, and personal interaction. Newly developed materials should focus on practical and lifestyle issues of asthma management. Participants also preferred a combination of traditional printed and digital resources. Cultural relevance could be improved by including images related to Aboriginal culture, featuring personal stories, and making materials available in Aboriginal languages. Conclusions
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".