Promoting a Culturally Safe Evaluation of an On-the-Land Wellness Program in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation partnered with a diverse research advisory team to understand how Project Jewel, a land-based program in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, could be evaluated in a way that promotes cultural safety (i.e., in a way that addresses the social, historical, and economic contexts that shape participants’ experiences). We used community-based research methodology to approach the study, through which semi-structured interviews, sharing circles, and photovoice were identified by the community advisory board and research advisory team as appropriate research methods for this project. After piloting and evaluating these methods, we then used thematic analysis to analyze the data, which included images and transcripts, to identify the components of a culturally safe evaluation: centring the land, building relationships, working with words and pictures, and promoting benefit over harms through program aftercare. Our community-based research and findings provide a template of a meaningful evaluation framework that other on-the-land programs can use if contextualized within local cultural practices and values.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".