Indigenous Communities and Community-Engaged Research: Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the inaugural issue of The Engaged Scholar Journal made apparent, while there is significant evidence that community-engaged scholarship has reached a critical mass in Canadian institutions, many important junctures still need to be explored. One such issue is the recognition of Indigenous community-engaged scholarship. Working from an appreciative stance, the three authors of this article explore how existing community-engaged scholarship theory intersects with their own experiences as academics—teasing out some of the potentialities and tensions that exist in the lived spaces where community-engagement thrives, amidst the boundaries of institutional tenure and promotion policies. The article also explores what kinds of practices or policies might be usefully considered by institutions, particularly around how to engage in more inclusive processes of scholarly recognition. We argue it is possible to embrace tools that create reciprocal, respectful and meaningful relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples who share deeply held beliefs in the power of research to alter lives and communities in powerful ways.
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 | 0.083 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".