MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994970402 · doi:10.14430/arctic69507

Lessons Learned through Research Partnership and Capacity Enhancement in Inuit Nunangat

2019· article· en· W2994970402 on OpenAlex
Natalie Carter, Jackie Dawson, Natasha Simonee, Shirley Tagalik, Gita Ljubicic

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityGovernment of NunavutUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFisheries and Oceans CanadaIndigenous and Northern Affairs CanadaParks CanadaNunavut General Monitoring PlanAurora Research InstituteDivision of Arctic SciencesUniversity of OttawaPolar Knowledge CanadaWorld Wildlife FundTransport CanadaMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response NetworkPew Charitable Trusts
KeywordsGeneral partnershipParticipatory action researchArcticPolitical scienceCitizen journalismGeographyPublic relationsEnvironmental resource managementSociologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facilitating research and enhancing community research capacity through a partnered approach in Inuit Nunangat (the Inuit homeland of Canada, located in Arctic Canada) presents learning opportunities and challenges for southern-based, non-Inuit researchers and community members alike. This article outlines lessons learned through the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (AC-NV) project, which involved 14 communities across Inuit Nunangat. The AC-NV focused on understanding community-identified impacts and potential management options of increased shipping in Inuit Nunangat due to sea ice reductions and a changing climate. The approach used to conduct the research involved visiting researchers and community partners working together with local organizations, and training and hiring northern youth as cultural liaisons and workshop co-facilitators. We strove to develop a model of collaborative partnership and strong north-south research relationships. In this paper, we draw on our broad learning experiences from four community case studies conducted as part of the AC-NV project: Arviat, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, and Pond Inlet, Nunavut. Close partnerships were formed in each of these communities, and 32 youth were trained in participatory mapping and workshop facilitation. For our diverse team of Inuit, northern- (i.e., non-Inuit, living in Inuit Nunangat), and southern-based non-Inuit researchers, our efforts to engage in partnered research were a critical component of the research and learning experience. In this article we share methodological reflections and lessons learned from what collaborative-partnered research means in practice. In so doing, we aim to contribute to the increasing dialogue and efforts around knowledge co-production and Inuit self-determination in research. Key conclusions of this reflective exercise include the importance of 1) conducting research that is relevant to local needs and interests, 2) visiting researchers and local organizations partnering together, 3) co-creating and refining knowledge documentation tools, 4) including youth cultural liaisons as co-facilitators, 5) conducting results validation and sharing exercises, and 6) being open to forming personal friendships. For the AC-NV, this community-based partnership approach resulted in more robust research results, strengthened north-south relations, and enhanced local capacity for community-led projects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.370
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.147 · 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