MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135783650 · doi:10.1177/1074840713508604

“Close-Knit” Defines a Healthy Native American Indian Family

2013· article· en· W2135783650 on OpenAlexaff
Donna Martin, Eleanor Yurkovich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNative americanSocial connectednessReservationEthnographyIndian countryHealth equityParticipant observationPerceptionGerontologyMedicinePsychologySociologySocial psychologyNursingPolitical sciencePublic healthAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States, the most significant health disparities occur among members of the American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. Because their health beliefs, values, and cultural practices are learned within a family system, this study used a focused ethnography to explore American Indians' perceptions of a healthy family. Seventeen interviews were performed with 21 adults residing on a reservation on the Northern Plains of the United States. Participant observation was conducted during 100 hr of fieldwork. All informants identified a healthy family as being "close-knit," indicating that the major defining feature of these families is the degree of connectedness among members, immediate and extended. In this paper, we present adult tribal members' descriptions of a healthy family. It is evident that culturally appropriate programs, which consider American Indians' values/beliefs and build on community assets, are urgently needed to reduce health disparities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family NursingSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207