Addressing the need for indigenous and decolonized quantitative research methods in 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
Though qualitative methods are often an appropriate Indigenous methodology and have dominated the literature on Indigenous research methods, they are not the only methods available for health research. There is a need for decolonizing and Indigenizing quantitative research methods, particularly in the discipline of epidemiology, to better address the public health needs of Indigenous populations who continue to face health inequities because of colonial systems, as well as inaccurate and incomplete data collection about themselves. For the last two decades, researchers in colonized countries have been calling for a specifically Indigenous approach to epidemiology that recognizes the limits of Western epidemiological methods, incorporates more Indigenous research methodologies and community-based participatory research methods, builds capacity by training more Indigenous epidemiologists, and supports Indigenous self-determination. Indigenous epidemiology can include a variety of approaches, including: shifting standards, such as age standardization, according to Indigenous populations to give appropriate weight to their experiences; carefully setting recruitment targets and using appropriate recruitment methods to fulfill statistical standards for stratification; acting as a bridge between Indigenous and Western technoscientific perspectives; developing culturally appropriate data collection tools; and developing distinct epidemiological methods based on Indigenous knowledge systems. This paper explores how decolonization and Indigenization of epidemiology has been operationalized in recent Canadian studies and projects, including the First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey and how this decolonization and Indigenization might be augmented with the capacity-building of the future Our Health Counts Applied Indigenous Epidemiology, Health Information, and Health Services and Program Evaluation Training and Mentorship Program in Canada.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.009 | 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