MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807730079 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003468

Integration of Indigenous healing practices with western biomedicine in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America: a scoping review protocol

2018· review· en· W2807730079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ilse Blignault, Jennifer Hunter, Janette Mumford

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomedicineIndigenousGeographyProtocol (science)Environmental planningPolitical scienceMedicineEcologyAlternative medicineBioinformaticsBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Review questions This scoping review aims to explore the following questions: What types of Indigenous healing practices have been integrated with western biomedicine in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA, and for what conditions or purpose have they been used? How has this integration been achieved, i.e. what are the key features of the service models implemented?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.154
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1540.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.014
Bibliometrics0.0220.018
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.008

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207