Informing the Co-Development of Culture-Centered Dietary Messaging in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Northern Indigenous communities require collaborative approaches to health communication about food that are grounded in Indigenous knowledges and cultures; however, preferences and best methods for this process remain understudied. This participatory study discusses how Inuvialuit (Inuit from the Western Arctic) knowledge and the perspectives of territorial, regional, and local dietary message stakeholders can inform the co-development of culture-centered dietary messaging to support healthy, safe, and culturally appropriate diets in Tuktoyaktuk, NWT. A community researcher in Tuktoyaktuk conducted storytelling interviews with country food knowledge holders (n = 7) and community members (n = 3), and a talking circle with local public health dietary message disseminators (n = 2) in June–July 2021. The lead author conducted key informant telephone and videoconference interviews with territorial and regional dietary message disseminators (n = 5) in June 2021. Interviews were coded and analyzed thematically. Our findings indicate that participants at all levels support increased inclusion of cultural and community perspectives about food to develop regionally and locally tailored dietary messaging. While most dietary message stakeholders wish to be involved in co-development processes, some country food knowledge holders in Tuktoyaktuk expressed a desire to lead local communications about country foods. Informed by participants’ experiences and needs, we provide recommendations for future community-led approaches to further (co-)develop and communicate effective, culturally meaningful dietary messaging that promotes Inuvialuit food sovereignty.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".