Reciprocal Inuit and Western research training: facilitating research capacity and community agency in Arctic research partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engaging community partners to work as co-researchers and research assistants for research involving Inuit communities or regions helps to ensure the equitable recognition of community and researcher priorities, mutual trust and respect, participation by local participants, inclusion of local knowledge and local uptake of research findings. However, research knowledge still in development among community members has been described as a barrier to effective Arctic community research partnerships. This paper describes two 3-day, cross-cultural research training workshops held in the Nunavut communities of Arviat and Iqaluit during Spring 2017. The purpose was to encourage reciprocity as a basis for research training that incorporates both Western and Inuit approaches and that emphasises relationship building to benefit both Inuit and non-Inuit research communities. A review of participant responses to the workshops suggests value in using an integrated Western-Inuit framework of educational objectives to guide the training. Responses suggest the workshops helped improve understanding of research practices and ethics rooted in different traditions for participants interested in assisting with or conducting research in Canada's Arctic 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 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 | 0.104 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".