Relevance of an existing knowledge-to-action model to research involving Indigenous youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graham et al. (2006) observed practice often lags behind research in health professions. In response, they produced a knowledge-to-action (KTA) model guiding knowledge translation. The model is general, allowing for application in a number of fields. In Canada, a major concern and avenue for research is reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission published a number of calls to action directing reconciliation. Five calls relate to Indigenous peoples' sport participation. Although sport participation may produce numerous positive outcomes, such as positive youth development, cultural irrelevance of sport programs may hinder prolonged engagement. Through talking circles held in three urban settings across western Canada, we engaged Indigenous youth in discussions examining their experiences with cultural (ir)relevance in sport and physical activity, including suggestions for improvements. Community nights were held at two of the locations to disseminate results to wider audiences. The purpose of this analysis was to relate the research process followed to Graham et al.'s KTA model as a means of identifying model components that may be improved upon for similar, future work. We conclude the iterative process of the KTA model may not be conducive to Indigenous youth stakeholders' prolonged participation in research, as the commitments and life circumstances of members of this demographic often change rapidly. We suggest addressing this concern with youth early into the process and, with their cooperation, identifying ways to deal with participation hindrances pre-emptively. Early identification of, and strategies to overcome barriers to participation may result in greater research partner retention.Acknowledgments: Funding was received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Sport Canada Research Initiative
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 | 0.066 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".