MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159957678 · doi:10.1177/1524839907307993

Indigenous Knowledge Translation: Baseline Findings in a Qualitative Study of the Pathways of Health Knowledge in Three Indigenous Communities in Canada

2008· article· en· W2159957678 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janet Smylie, Nili Kaplan-Myrth, Kelly McShane

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousParticipatory action researchKnowledge translationGeneral partnershipFocus groupTraditional knowledgeCommunity-based participatory researchCitizen journalismCommunity healthQualitative researchPublic relationsInformation DisseminationSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceKnowledge managementPublic healthNursingSocial scienceWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To acquire an understanding of the pathways of health information dissemination and use by Indigenous community members, the researchers applied an Indigenous participatory action research approach in partnership with one urban Inuit, one urban Métis, and one semirural First Nations community in Ontario, Canada. A descriptive community case study was conducted in each community through the use of focus groups, key informant interviews, and document inquiry. Results were corroborated by the communities. Each of the three community consultations generated distinct and striking data about health information sources and dissemination strategies; decision-making processes; locally relevant concepts of health, local health services, and programs; community structures; and mechanisms of interface with noncommunity systems. In addition, several crosscutting themes were identified. The participatory research approach successfully engaged community partners. These findings support the hypothesis that understanding local Indigenous processes of knowledge creation, dissemination, and utilization is a necessary prerequisite to effective knowledge translation in Indigenous contexts.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0350.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.366
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Citations119
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion PracticeSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207