Moving Towards an Indigenous Research Process: A Reflexive Approach to Empirical Work With First Nations Communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moving towards reconciliation within Indigenous research requires the careful examination of existing practices at all stages of the research process. Engagement in and dissemination of reflexive processes may increase the relevance of research results for Indigenous communities and partners. This article describes and contextualizes the results obtained from this qualitative research study examining parenting needs and child reunification in these communities. The initial results were deemed relevant by the partnering community but research stakeholders reported that they did not reflect all community values. Based on the advice of the Research Advisory Group, the research team decided to further analyze the results to address these shortcomings. The reanalysis process focused on improving the perceived meaningfulness and relevance to communities. Exploration of how these results were re-situated in an Indigenous framework of wellbeing is discussed. Researcher reflections about the project processes and considerations for future research are explored.
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 | 0.155 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".