Reimagining Aboriginality, Addictions, and Collaborative Research in Inner City Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal Health and Healing’ was an imaginative ethnographic research project \nthat combined visual anthropology, participatory-action research, and decolonizing \nprinciples (Smith 1999) to explore the challenges of engaging economically \nand politically marginalized HIV positive individuals into care and treatment. \nThe purpose of the paper is twofold. First, we consider some of the on-going \npolitical and methodological challenges in community-based research between \nimpoverished, marginalized community members and academic researchers. As \na case study, we focus here on our team’s travel to and participation at a national \nAIDS conference – at once, our biggest challenge and best achievement – where \nwe were forced to negotiate travel arrangements, drug addictions, safety, health \nissues, and professional aspirations. Particular focus is given to addiction and drug \nuse, and the impact of conventional narratives of these behaviours within our own \nwork. Second, we draw on theoretical contributions in the field of critical disability \nstudies to reimagine how we might approach studies with inner city residents \nwho are both living with addictions and living with HIV/AIDS as a means to \ndeveloping research practices that are democratic
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".