Families navigating community resources: understanding and supporting Nunavimmiut families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a project aiming to develop community-led resources for families in northern Quebec, Canada, members (Inuit and non-Inuit) of the project decided to meet with Inuit parents to hear their experiences and needs, and to better understand how family dynamics might be related to ways of using resources within communities. In this article, we present secondary analyses of interviews conducted in 2015 with 14 parents living in a community of Nunavik, northern Quebec, accompanied by participatory analysis sessions. A dual data analysis strategy was adopted. Non-Inuit researchers and research assistants with significant lived experience in Nunavik explored what they learned from the stories that Inuit parents shared with them through the interviews and through informal exchanges. Inuit partners then discussed the large themes identified by the research team to guide non-Inuit researchers in their analysis. The aim was to better inform non-Inuit service providers and people whose mandate it is to support community mobilisation in relation to the heterogeneous realities of Inuit families, and the ways in which they can be of support to families based on their specific realities and needs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".