MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587968547 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55585-4_25

Growing Wellbeing Through Community Participatory Arts: The Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study (ACCSS)

2017· book-chapter· en· W2587968547 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pauline Sameshima, Dayna Slingerland, Pamela Wakewich, Kyla Morrisseau, Ingeborg Zehbe

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical cancerIndigenousMedicineUnderpinningThe artsCervical cancer screeningParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismCancerPolitical scienceSociologyEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes the successful use of wool felting to enhance cervical cancer screening education for Canadian Indigenous women. The Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study is a large mixed-methods study being conducted by a multi-disciplinary team in collaboration with ten Robinson-Superior Treaty First Nations communities in northwestern Ontario, Canada, to address and ultimately improve cervical cancer screening in First Nations women. Despite significant decrease in cervical cancer deaths since the introduction of the Pap(anicolaou) test, Indigenous women in Canada have 2 to 20 times the risk of contracting cervical cancer. This chapter shares the research tenets underpinning this arts-integrated work, the outcomes of needle felting in a pilot focus group, and an artist-researcher’s learnings in creating the art pieces “Growing Wellbeing.”

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.577
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.023 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207