The Changing Tide: Indigenizing Re-Search with Indigenous Women Living with HIV to Explore, Understand, and Support their Health and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian HIV Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study – Positive Aboriginal Women (CHIWOS-PAW) actively Indigenizes and honours re-search by, with, and for Indigenous communities. In this study, as Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, we weave our ways of knowing and doing together on the Ancestral, Traditional, and stolen lands of the x w mƏθk w ƏýƏm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish), sƏĺilwƏtaɁɬ tƏmƏx w (Tsleil-Waututh), S’ólh Téméxw (Stó:lō), and the Kwantlen Territories. We conceptualize ‘re-search’ as a cyclical journey that is not about ‘discovering’ new knowledge but designing a process to search for what is known, existing, and embodied by Mother Earth and our Ancestors. In this paper, we describe our process of using strengths-based approaches grounded in our connections with the Lands and Waters to explore how Indigenous Women living with HIV support their health and well-being by drawing upon Indigenous teachings and healing. Over the course of multiple gatherings conducted over 1 year with the same group of women, we utilized arts-based research methods, Indigenous teachings and ceremony, and Sharing Circles to collect and analyze women’s perspectives and experiences of their health and healthcare. The Wise Women were living in the Coast Salish Territories, yet came from different Communities, including Coast Salish, Cree, Blackfoot, and Navajo Nation. Our Indigenized re-search process was healing for the Wise Women who participated in the study and for us as the re-search team, which promoted re-connection to self, nature, and culture. We share insights on our learnings to support other community-based research teams to engage in re-search by, with, and for Indigenous Women that prioritizes safety, healing, and benefit for those who participate. Such insights include the importance of centering Indigenous Ways of Knowing, Ceremony, and Cultural Practices; changing re-search jargon to more inclusive and honouring language; and reaffirming commitment to Indigenous Communities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".