MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138060035 · doi:10.1177/160940690300200401

Balancing Culture, Ethics, and Methods in Qualitative Health Research with Aboriginal Peoples

2003· article· en· W2138060035 on OpenAlex
Lynn M. Meadows, Laura Lagendyk, Wilfreda E. Thurston, Amanda C. Eisener

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchSociologyEthical issuesPublic relationsResearch ethicsEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsSocial sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Including Aboriginal women in qualitative health research expands our understanding of factors that contribute to their health and well-being. As part of the larger WHEALTH study, we gathered qualitative health data on midlife Aboriginal women living both on and off reserves. Despite careful planning and a commitment to methodological congruence and purposiveness we encountered a number of challenges that raised ethical questions. We present how we addressed these issues as we attempted to produce ethical, culturally sensitive, and sound research in a timely fashion. This article provides important considerations for other researchers and funding bodies while illustrating the benefits of working with Aboriginal women as an under researched population.

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)0.207
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.563
GPT teacher head0.729
Teacher spread0.166 · 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