MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804044821 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196090

Who is research serving? A systematic realist review of circumpolar environment-related Indigenous health literature

2018· review· en· W2804044821 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jen Jones, Ashlee Cunsolo, Sherilee L. Harper

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsPierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
KeywordsCircumpolar starIndigenousParticipatory action researchCommunity-based participatory researchCommunity engagementHealth equityCommunity healthSociologyPolitical scienceGeographyPublic relationsMedicinePublic healthEcologyAnthropologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Addressing factors leading to health disparities in the Circumpolar North require approaches that consider and address the social determinants of health including on-going colonization. Today, colonization and related policies and processes, continue to manifest in the marginalization of Indigenous knowledge, particularly its use in research; however, Indigenous populations have moved from being research subjects to leaders and consumers of environmental health research. Given the tensions that exist between how health research is conducted, how the results are mobilized, and who has control and access to the results, we examine how peer-reviewed environment-related Indigenous health research in the Circumpolar North is serving the needs of Indigenous communities, governments, and organizations. METHODS: A modified systematic-realist literature review was conducted. Three databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature published from 2000 to 2015. Articles were included if the research focused on the intersection of the environment and health in Northern Canada and/or Alaska. A total of 960 unique records were screened for relevance, and 210 articles were analysed. RESULTS: Of these relevant articles, 19% discussed how Indigenous peoples were engaged in the research. There was a significant increase in reporting participatory, community-based methods over time; the proportion of articles reporting community-engagement varied by research topic; quantitative research articles were significantly less likely to report community-engaged methods; and most articles did not clearly report how the results were shared with the community. CONCLUSION: The results raise a number of questions for the field of Circumpolar environment-related Indigenous health research, including whether or how authors of peer-reviewed literature should (or should not) be obliged to describe how research is serving Northern Indigenous communities. The results are intended to stimulate further conversations and bridge perceived dichotomies of quantitative/qualitative, Western/Indigenous, and empirical/community driven research approaches, as well as underlying assumptions that frame health research.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.203 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207