Building on Strengths: Collaborative Intergenerational Health Research with Urban First Nations and Métis Women and Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has focused on how Indigenous girls and their familial female caregivers negotiate issues pertaining to wellbeing and decision-making practices. To address this gap, we employed a novel intergenerational Indigenous partnership methods using various decolonizing action and arts-based activities, to allow participants to guide and modify the direction of the research throughout data collection. We report on three separate activities: a physical game to address concepts of wellness, a memory game that focused on harm reduction and an art project that explored self-esteem. Within each of these activities, female family members and girls worked together to unpack issues of importance within their lives. We conclude that a flexible participatory research design within an intergenerational setting can meet not only the proposed research objectives, but participants’ ever-changing questions and concerns pertaining to health and wellbeing, while still producing rich data to answer important research questions.
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 | 0.047 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".