MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306294618 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2022.13.2.13792

Community-led Recovery from the Opioid Crisis through Culturally-based Programs and Community-based Data Governance

2022· article· en· W4306294618 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Marion Maar, Tim Ominika, Darrel Manitowabi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalNOSM University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIndigenousSovereigntyCorporate governanceOpioid use disorderPublic relationsCulturally appropriatePolitical scienceMedicineNursingSociologyBusinessOpioidFamily medicineLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The opioid crisis is disproportionately impacting Indigenous communities in Canada. There is a need to evaluate practical approaches to recovery that include community-based opioid agonist treatment (OAT) and integration of cultural treatment models. Naandwe Miikan, translated as The Healing Path, is an OAT program that blends clinical and Indigenous healing concepts and providers in a community-based setting. Aside from OAT pharmaceutical treatment, clients work with Indigenous counsellors that integrate culture with treatment, such as land-based activities, that reconnect the community to Indigenous teachings and harvesting. In this paper, we present a case study showcasing community advocacy in creating innovative funding models and engaging with clinicians to provide a shared care OAT model with traditional Indigenous counselling, cultural programs, and data sovereignty. Policy needs are identified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0040.025
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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