MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802246552 · doi:10.7939/r3bw32

Spider weaving: STI/HIV prevention using popular theatre and action research in an indigenous community

2010· article· en· W2802246552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josephine Auger

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeavingIndigenousAction (physics)SpiderHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Visual artsSociologyArtEngineeringMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pocket of HIV infection has grown to epidemic proportions in a mostly Aboriginal1 community in Northern Alberta. At the start of the research my assumptions were that Aboriginal2 sexuality is affected by political, historical, cultural, psychological, and social factors that underpin the social determinants of health. STI/HIV is a symptom of the marginalized status of Aboriginal peoples who experienced historical trauma due to colonization. As an insider researcher, using an exploratory design I addressed the following questions: 1) is popular theatre a culturally appropriate medium for introducing information to increase knowledge of STI/HIV in an Aboriginal audience? 2) Is popular theatre an effective way to encourage audience members to express their attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours related to sexual health? 3) How are popular theatre and action research methodologically and conceptually appropriate for preventing STI/HIV? 4) How do the influence of elders and a popular theatre practitioner affect the intervention? 5) Can the use of action research and popular theatre influence the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours to promote healthy sexual choices? 6) Is narrative analysis a good way for Aboriginal people to tell their stories or have their stories told? Completing this exploratory research was financially possible through the Aboriginal Health Strategy. The funds enabled me to recruit a popular theatre practitioner, a group of young Indigenous community members and supportive elders to answer my research questions. The data was obtained through one-to-one interviews, journals, talking circles, and field notes of the community-based theatre and action research process. Due to a lack of time in the field, narrative analysis was not used. Instead I introduced Grandmother Spider and developed a dream catcher that I refer to as the Indigenous Iterative Webbed Circle to analyze the real and fictional stories that led to the community performance of ―My People‘s Blood.‖ The methods are appropriate and effective if the principles of Community Based Participatory Research and action research are followed by all group members involved in this popular theatre project.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.537
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.033 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207