MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161971543 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2021-007

A Scoping Review of Parenting Programs for Indigenous People in Canada: What Approaches Are Being Applied in Indigenous Communities?

2021· review· en· W3161971543 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elaine Toombs, Lauren Dalicandro, Fred Schmidt, Christopher J. Mushquash

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCommissionCulturally appropriateGrey literatureIndigenous cultureCulturally sensitiveTraditional knowledgePolitical scienceNursingPsychologyMedicineMEDLINEGerontologySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a significant disruption in the transmission of parenting practices across generations of Canadian Indigenous communities (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada [TRC], 2015). As a result, there is a pressing need for effective and culturally appropriate programs for Indigenous parents (TRC, 2015). Review of currently available parenting programs in Canada may help by synthesizing Indigenous and non-Indigenous parenting knowledge. To that end, a scoping review of sources that described parenting programs for Indigenous families was completed using 11 databases and available grey literature. All programs integrated cultural components into treatment, though specific activities, content, and structure varied. Recommendations for clinical practice and future research are provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0170.025
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207