MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592562146 · doi:10.1177/1609406917696742

A Case Study of a Methodological Approach to Cocreating Perinatal Health Knowledge Between Western and Indigenous Communities

2017· article· en· W2592562146 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sujane Kandasamy, Meredith Vanstone, Mark Oremus, T. Eustace Hill, Gita Wahi, Julie Wilson, A. Darlene Davis, Ruby Jacobs, Rebecca Anglin, Sonia S. Anand

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsAssembly of First NationsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster UniversityImpactMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsIndigenousMultidisciplinary approachConstructivist grounded theoryContext (archaeology)Traditional knowledgeSociologyGrounded theoryGeographySocial scienceQualitative researchEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the methods taken to create an understanding of the perinatal health beliefs of elder Indigenous women of the Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario, Canada. Our study paired constructivist grounded theory data collection and analysis methods with an Indigenous epistemological framework. We aimed to create knowledge that was specific to an Indigenous context, which was useful and resonant with both Indigenous and Western readers. The multidisciplinary research team included Indigenous and non-Indigenous members and worked with a common appreciation for multiple knowledge sources. We offer an account of our process and methodological principles to serve as an illustrative case study of bringing together diverse approaches when working with Indigenous communities.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.781
GPT teacher head0.687
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207