“Sewing Is Part of Our Tradition”: A Case Study of Sewing as a Strategy for Arts-Based Inquiry in Health Research With Inuit Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we present a case study of sewing as a strategy for arts-based inquiry in health research, situated within a broader project that highlighted Nunavut Inuit women’s childbirth experiences. Five focus groups were hosted as sewing sessions with pregnant women ( N = 19) in Iqaluit, Nunavut (2017–2018). Women’s reflections on the sessions, and the significance of sewing to Inuit, were integrated with researchers’ critical reflections to examine the value of sewing as a strategy for arts-based inquiry within a focus group method: results related to the flexibility of the sessions; how collective sewing created space for voicing, sharing, and relating; sewing as a tactile and place-specific practice tied to Inuit knowledge and tradition; and lessons learned. Our results underscore the possibilities of arts-based approaches, such as sewing, to enhance data gathering within a focus group method and to contribute to more locally appropriate, place-based methods for Indigenous health research.
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 | 0.035 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".