Institutional Barriers to Community-Based Research: Learning from the Nunavut, Nanivara Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a method of conducting research, understood to be consistent with a decolonizing research agenda. Drawing on experiences from the Nanivara (‘I found it!’) Project, undertaken with youth in Gjoa Haven and Naujaat, Nunavut Territory (2013-2016), institutional barriers to these objectives are explored. While universities and granting agencies have increasingly emphasized the importance of participatory methods and applied research to benefit and help develop the capacity of Indigenous communities, institutional barriers to accomplishing these objectives exist. Research funding bodies and universities have yet to address adequately the significant structural barriers that perpetuate unequal and inequitable relations in the conduct of PAR. This has serious implications for researchers and institutions funding research, where policies and procedures do not easily accommodate the material, social, and geographical realities of Inuit youth.
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 | 0.048 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".