MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W37451085 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2011.2.1.8

Capacity-building and Participatory Research Development of a Community-based Nutrition and Exercise Lifestyle Intervention Program (NELIP) for Pregnant and Postpartum Aboriginal Women:Information Gathered from Talking Circles.

2011· article· en· W37451085 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michelle F. Mottola, Maggie M. Sopper, Lindsay Doxtator, Katie Big-Canoe, Harry Prapavessis, Stewart B. Harris, Anthony J. Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchCommunity-based participatory researchNutrition EducationIntervention (counseling)GerontologyGestational diabetesIndigenousMedicineCapacity buildingNursingMedical educationPregnancySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives were to gather information from Talking Circles of Aboriginal women who participated in a maternal Nutrition and Exercise Lifestyle Intervention Program (NELIP) to identify strategies to bring NELIP into the community. Twelve First Nations women participated. Several main themes were identified regarding health: balance, knowledge/education and time management. Benefits of the NELIP were improvement in health, stamina, stress, and a healthy baby, no gestational diabetes and a successful home birth, with social support as an important contributing factor for success. Suggestions for improvement for the NELIP included group walking, and incorporating more traditional foods into the meal plan. The information gathered is the first step in determining strategies using participatory research and capacity-building to develop a community-based NELIP for pregnant Aboriginal women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207