Aboriginal Participatory Action Research: An Indigenous Research Methodology Strengthening Decolonisation and Social and Emotional Wellbeing
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
Focusing on key Indigenous wellbeing paradigms, discourses, and disciplines this discussion paper presents a distinctive Aboriginal Participatory Action Research (APAR) approach as a transformative Indigenous Research Methodology. It also explores Indigenous Standpoint Theory, Indigenous Knowledge Systems, Indigenous Research Methods and Methodologies as key elements in decolonising research, building self-determination in communities, and contributing to Indigenous social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) and Indigenous Psychology. Drawing on three community projects — the Kimberley Empowerment, Healing and Leadership Program, the National Empowerment Project and the Cultural, Social and Emotional Wellbeing Program — this paper demonstrates how APAR contributes to Indigenous SEWB and Indigenous Psychology. Finally, it examines the interrelationship of core components of APAR articulating an Indigenous epistemology, ontology, axiology (Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing) and methodology covering Indigenous specific methods, guiding principles, research protocols and ethical guidelines.
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 | 0.020 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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