Indigenous perspectives on wellness and health in Canada: study protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indigenous communities are often portrayed from a deficit-based lens; however, Indigenous communities have self-determined perspectives of health and well-being that are strength based. The objective of this study will be to systematically map the literature on perspectives, concepts, and constructs of wellness and well-being in Indigenous communities in Canada. METHODS: A scoping review protocol was designed following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We will search the following electronic databases (from inception onwards): MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Anthropology Plus, Bibliography of Native North Americans, Canadian Business and Current Affairs, and Circumpolar Health Bibliographic Database. Grey literature will be identified through searching dissertation databases, Google Scholar, and conference abstracts. We will include all types of literature in English, published and unpublished, including any study design, reviews and meta-analyses, dissertations, reports, and books. The literature considered should describe or reflect Indigenous perspectives that identify concepts or constructs related to well-being or wellness; literature can be from any setting in Canada. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text reports, and abstract data. Data analysis will involve quantitative descriptions (e.g. frequencies) and qualitative content analysis methods. DISCUSSION: This review will provide a synthesis of the literature on Indigenous perspectives, concepts, and constructs of wellness and well-being in Canada. We anticipate the study will contribute to improve our understanding of how Indigenous communities conceptualize and embody wellness. Our findings will provide a basis for engaging Indigenous stakeholders in future health research and informing future interpretations of how wellness is conceptualized, whether written or unwritten.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".