Negotiation, Reciprocity, and Reality: The Experience of Collaboration in a Community-Based Primary Health Care (CBPHC) Program of Research with Eight Manitoba First Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article shares experiences and lessons learned through a collaboration between the University of Manitoba, the First Nation Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba (FNHSSM), and eight First Nation communities in Manitoba. We employed a participatory approach from planning the research project, to data collection, and to the analysis, interpretation, and implementation of results. We learned that successful collaborations require: a) investing time and resources into developing respectful research relationships; b) strong leadership and governance; c) clearly defined roles and responsibilities; d) meaningful participation of First Nations; e) multiple opportunities for community engagement; and f) commitment to multiple, ongoing, and consistent forms of communication. All factors are integral to creating and maintaining the integrity of the research collaboration.
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 | 0.037 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.066 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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".