MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082328467 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa038

Developing the Canadian Indigenous Cognitive Assessment for Use With Indigenous Older Anishinaabe Adults in Ontario, Canada

2020· article· en· W3082328467 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIndigenousCognitionGeographyPolitical scienceGerontologyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objectives Dementia is a growing public health issue for aging Indigenous populations. Current cognitive assessments present varying degrees of cultural, educational, and language bias, impairing their application in Indigenous communities. Our goal is to provide Anishinaabe communities in Canada with a brief cognitive test that can be administered within the community setting by community health workers or professionals. The purpose of this study was to adapt the Kimberly Indigenous Cognitive Assessment (KICA) for use as a brief cognitive test with Anishinaabe populations in Canada. Research Design and Methods We used a community-based participatory research approach coupled with two-eyed seeing to provide an equitable space for Indigenous knowledge. Adaptation of the KICA was accomplished over 22 months using an iterative cycle of monthly consultations between an 11-member expert Anishinaabe language group (EALG) and the investigators, with ad hoc consultations with an Indigenous Elder, a community advisory council, and the KICA authors. Face validity was established with two pilot studies using cognitive interviewing with Indigenous older adults (n = 15) and a focus group consultation with local health professionals (n = 7). Results Each question of the KICA was scrutinized by the EALG for cultural appropriateness, language and translation, and cultural safety. Every domain required adaptation to reflect cultural values, specificity of language, tone, and a culturally safe approach. Orientation, verbal comprehension and fluency, praxis, and naming domains required the most adaptations. The first pilot for face validity resulted in additional changes; the second confirmed satisfactory adaptation of all changes. Discussion and Implications The research resulted in the new Canadian Indigenous Cognitive Assessment. The findings reveal important cultural and linguistic considerations for cross-cultural cognitive assessment in Indigenous contexts. This new culturally appropriate and safe brief cognitive test may improve case finding accuracy and lead to earlier diagnosis and improved dementia care for Indigenous peoples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.271 · 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