"Making a Place of Respect": Lessons Learned in Carrying Out Consent Protocol With First Nations Elders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article explores the issue of informed consent by First Nations Elders modifying and implementing a substance abuse prevention program for youth, Nimi Icinohabi, among the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation. The Elders who approved and guided the research maintained that informed consent procedures carried out by the Western academic institutions were redundant given adherence to their own culturally based protocol. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to present lessons learned regarding the cultural basis of consent involving First Nations Elders to improve our own and other researchers' ethical practice in this context. METHODS: Two focus groups were held with our team of community and university-based researchers (n = 6) to discuss our experience of the Elder consent procedures used during the project. RESULTS: Elder involvement was integral to the success of the program. Using methods of consent originating from Western thought and given historical and ongoing issues of trust with Western institutions, signing consent forms was unacceptable to them and perceived as undermining their own ethical practices. An oral consent process utilizing cultural protocol and a tool to keep track of participation in this process was subsequently approved by our Research Ethics Board (REB) and used successfully. CONCLUSIONS: When researchers use standard informed consent practices, they risk losing the trust of community partners by undermining cultural values and practices. As academic researchers, it is our ethical responsibility, in the spirit of restorative justice, to honor the principles of beneficence and justice in research by ensuring consent within the context of cultural protocol.
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 | 0.628 | 0.576 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".