Developing effective, culturally appropriate avenues to FASD diagnosis and prevention in northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes 2 research initiatives that are being undertaken by members of the Canada Northwest FASD Research Network, involving collaborations between researchers, clinicians, service providers and community members in the Canadian North. Improving both the diagnosis and prevention of FASD requires evidence-based approaches to clinical and social service delivery that are capable of accounting for the unique contours of the geographic, regional and cultural diversities in which women become pregnant and in which families live. Although FASD has been a priority for communities and governments in northern Canada, research capacity has not been available to support the development of the context-specific knowledge needed to inform policy and practice in this region. Moreover, there have not been adequate mechanisms for transferring practice-based knowledge from the Canadian North to researchers and service providers in the South, who might make use of this knowledge to inform their own practice. Herein, we highlight the ways in which reciprocal knowledge exchange involving CanFASD Northwest researchers at academic health science centres and diverse stakeholder groups is supporting multi-directional capacity building in FASD diagnosis and prevention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".