Employing Indigenous Methodologies to Understand Women’s Perceptions of HIV, Health, and Well-being in Quebec, Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guided by an Indigenous Methodology and a participatory research approach, we explored the experiences and priorities of Indigenous women living in Quebec regarding HIV prevention and care, overall health, and well-being. We drew from our research process to identify recommendations for conducting research with Indigenous women. These lessons include: (1) incorporating culturally adapted methods (e.g., sharing circles, arts, ceremony) facilitated participants’ safety and comfort; (2) conducting numerous workshops was valuable in building trust; and (3) validating findings with participants was essential to ensuring that the knowledge, experiences, and priorities of Indigenous women were respected. Our research findings regarding the care needs and priorities of women emphasize the importance of peer-led groups, culturally rooted healing strategies, accessible harm reduction, and social supports. Participatory research, led by members of the communities concerned, imbues the research with local knowledge and wisdom, which ensures the relevance of the research, the appropriateness of its conduct, and enables its overall success.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it