Gimiigiwemin: Putting Knowledge Translation Into Practice With Anishinaabe Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Anishinaabemowen lagnuage, Gimiigiwemin is a concept that means, “we are exchanging gifts.” In the context of research, Indigenous communities often share their gifts with researchers by exposing them to local ways of knowing. Researchers can engage in exchanging gifts through sharing their skills and working towards producing research that meets community needs, such as supporting efforts to maintain health-sustaining relationships with traditional lands. Environmental repossession refers to the social, cultural, and political processes through which Indigenous Peoples are building resilience and reclaiming their traditional lands and ways of life. These processes are important because the health, ways of living, and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples all depend on access to traditional lands. This paper presents the results of a community-based participatory research study conducted in collaboration with Elders (n = 46) from two Anishinaabe communities on the north shore of Lake Superior (Ontario, Canada). This research employed locally relevant forms of integrated knowledge translation as a means of exchanging the gift of knowledge amongst all involved. This process culminated in a 2-day celebration wherein talking circles were used to explore Elders’ ideas about potential strategies for environmental repossession in their communities. Results from the talking circles pointed to four main strategies: (1) re-establishing the relationship between Elders and youth, (2) increasing time spent on traditional lands, (3) improving physical health, and (4) fostering community pride. This research emphasizes the strength of adopting culturally appropriate approaches to knowledge translation within studies aimed at supporting community aspirations of environmental repossession.
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 | 0.034 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".