Seeking Culturally Safe Developmental Evaluation: Supporting the Shift in Services for Indigenous Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evaluation methods based on western frameworks that disregard Indigenous peoples’ worldviews and are imposed and implemented by outsiders are problematic for Indigenous communities. Purpose: The article presents the experience of using developmental evaluation (DE) in supporting a shift in pre- and post-natal care programming for Indigenous mothers and their young children. Setting: Indigenous peoples living in urban areas in Quebec often feel unwelcome mainstream services, resulting in under-use. A history of colonization in Canada has resulted in a loss of Indigenous child-rearing practices Intervention: The study was carried out in the context of a three-year initiative aimed at strengthening the abilities of pregnant women, mothers, fathers, extended family, community, and practitioners to create conditions for the holistic development of themselves and their children. The goal was to create new knowledge through activities focused on promoting perinatal care and psychosocial adaptability. Cultural safety, an ecosystemic view of child development, and social innovation guided the approach to the intervention. Research Design: A case study approach was used to make sense of and describe the “how to” of the DE. Data Collection and Analysis: Multiple methods of data collection informed the case study, including observation, field notes, interviews, and participatory evaluation activities. Findings: The article sheds light on DE as a culturally safe and participatory practice that is compatible with Indigenous perspectives and contributes to supporting the transformation in services provided to Indigenous communities. We present building relationships, creating safe spaces for reflection and dialogue, questioning fundamentals, and co-creation as critical components of culturally safe DE, enabling development and a paradigm shift.
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 | 0.057 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".