Indigenous Social Enterprises and Health and Wellbeing: A Scoping Review and Conceptual Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous people and communities are establishing social enterprises to address social disadvantage and overcome health inequities in their communities. This review sought to characterize the spectrum of Indigenous social enterprises in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States to identify the operational models and cultural values that underpin them and their impact on Indigenous health and wellbeing. The scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage methodological framework with recommended enhancements by Levac et al. underpinned by Indigenous Standpoint Theory, and an Indigenous advisory group to provide cultural oversight and direction. Of the 589 documents screened 115 documents were included in the review. A conceptual framework of seven different operational models of Indigenous social enterprises was developed based on differing levels of Indigenous ownership, control, and management: (1) individual, (2) collective, (3) delegative, (4) developmental, (5) supportive, (6) prescriptive and (7) paternalistic. Models with 100% Indigenous ownership and control were more likely to contribute to improved health and wellbeing by increasing self-determination and strengthening culture and promoting healing than others. Indigenous social enterprises could offer a more holistic and sustainable approach to health equity and health promotion than the siloed, programmatic model common in public health policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".