Cultural Proficiency in First Nations Health Research: A Mixed-Methods, Cross-Cultural Evaluation of a Novel Resource
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent efforts have illustrated the efficacy of culturally proficient approaches to research, underpinned by robust partnerships between researchers and First Nations peoples and communities. This article seeks to determine differences in approaches to First Nations research engagement perceptions between First Nations and non-First Nations researchers, as well as whether participation in a cultural proficiency workshop improved the perceived cultural proficiency of non-First Nations health researchers. Also, whether a set of novel cultural proficiency resources, designed in the Sydney region could be applied broadly across First Nations contexts within Australia. The evaluation adopted a mixed-methods, cross-cultural (First Nations and non-First Nations) design to appraise the novel cultural proficiency resources, identifying participant perceptions to First Nations research engagement, as well as views regarding the feasibility of universal application of the resources. A quantitative pre- and post-workshop evaluation was also undertaken to measure differences in self-reported cultural proficiency. Qualitative data underwent thematic analysis and quantitative data were analysed applying t-tests. Both qualitative and quantitative evaluation showed minimal variation between the cultural groups regarding research engagement perceptions, based on viewing of the online resources. A statistically significant increase in self-reported cultural proficiency was found in non-First Nations workshop participants. Cultural proficiency education and training programs that promote an immersive, interactive, and ongoing framework can build the perceived cultural proficiency of non-First Nations health researchers, however First Nations expertise must validate this perceived cultural proficiency to be beneficial in practice. Based on the research findings, applying the underlying ethical principles of First Nations research with a local, context-centred approach allows for the broad application of cultural proficiency research education and training programs within Australia.
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 | 0.148 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".