Developing dementia health promotion materials for Indigenous people in an urban Northern Ontario community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis considers health promotion materials on dementia for Indigenous people using health \nliteracy and cultural safety as guiding frameworks. The author examined the question “How can \nwe develop health promotion materials about dementia to meet the needs of Indigenous peoples \nliving in urban Northern Ontario?” using two decolonized approaches to community-based \nparticipatory action research. Two-eyed seeing combines biomedical information with \nIndigenous knowledge to develop fact sheets. An understanding of local tribal teachings guided \nthe research locally. Methods involved qualitative data analysis of two focus groups and five \none-on-one interviews exploring the fact sheets’ appropriateness. Results suggest the need for a \nshared understanding of Indigenous and Western cultures; improved cross-cultural \ncommunication; the importance of grounding health promotion materials in culture; and, \nstrategies for dementia awareness in Indigenous health literacy. These research findings can be \ntranslated to inform policy and practice through key recommendations regarding the \ndevelopment of health promotional materials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".