Indigenous Health Research: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse researchers schooled in Euro-Western traditions are learning the importance of Indigenous knowledge systems and research methodologies. Two-eyed seeing is an example of how Indigenous knowledge systems can influence the conduct of research. Two-eyed seeing and the opening of ethical space for the co-creation of knowledge are in keeping with Aboriginal traditions and honour the blending of Aboriginal and Western understandings of moral governance. The authors explain how community-based participatory research and the principles of ownership, control, access, and possession help to integrate two-eyed seeing and ethical space in shaping nursing research to address health priorities with Aboriginal peoples. These concepts respect diverse Indigenous knowledge systems and methodologies, and, importantly, position them as central to Indigenous research. This stance is consistent with that of scholars who advocate for Indigenous research that supports the principles of respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility.
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 | 0.111 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| 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".