A Journey of Doing Research “In a Good Way”: Partnership, Ceremony, and Reflections Contributing to the Care and Wellbeing of Indigenous Women Living with HIV in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the First Peoples of Canada and researchers is changing as processes of self-determination and reconciliation are increasingly implemented. We used storytelling and ceremony to describe a historic event, the Indigenous Women’s Data Transfer Ceremony, where quantitative data of 318 Indigenous women living with HIV were transferred to Indigenous academic and community leaders. Relationship building, working together with a common vision, the Ceremony, and the subsequent activities were summarized as a journey of two boats. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Calls to Action and Indigenous ethical principles were central to the process. The article ends with team members’ reflections and the importance of shifting power to Indigenous Peoples in regard to data collection, their stories, and the resulting policies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.075 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".