Wîcohkamakew – A qualitative description of parents, perinatal clinic staff, and mentor Elders experiences of a Nêhiyawi (Cree) community-derived Elders Mentoring Program: Findings from the ENRICH study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Responding to concerns over perinatal health risks and adverse outcomes, a community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership was established in collaboration with a large Nêhiyawi (Cree) community in Alberta and university-based researchers. An Elders Mentoring Program was designed and implemented to provide additional support for pregnant women and their partners. Our objective was to understand the collective experiences of those involved in the Program. Methods: We conducted a qualitative description with the principles of CBPR as an over-arching framework. A total of 14 qualitative interviews were conducted with parents utilizing the Program, perinatal clinic staff helping to facilitate the Program, and mentor Elders that engage with parents as part of the Program. Community Advisory Committee meeting notes were also used as data. All qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis. Results: The Program helps pregnant women and their partners by fostering enhanced support networks as well as improved cultural security within the clinical environment and learning among healthcare staff. A sense of intergenerational fulfillment and enjoyment among those involved in the Program was common, and was underpinned by genuine, collaborative relationships Conclusions: Successful implementation of a community-derived prenatal Elders Mentoring Program is possible with significant community collaboration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".