A Scoping Review of Theoretical Lenses and Methodological Approaches in Indigenous Women’s Health and Well-Being Research in North America over the Past Two Decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical approaches influence research design, engagement, and outcomes. The relevance of critical theoretical and methodological approaches to Indigenous women's health and well-being research has increased in the last decade. It is difficult to assess the ways in which theoretical lenses can effectively interrupt and challenge systemic erasure, ongoing harms, and deficit-based (ill-health-centered) approaches to Indigenous women's health and well-being, a fact that is not broadly acknowledged. We conducted a scoping review to (a) map the type and frequency of critical theoretical lenses used by researchers focused on Indigenous women's health and well-being in North America over the past two decades and (b) identify which topics tend to use which theoretical lens. We have conducted a scoping review to examine peer-reviewed articles from eight electronic databases. In the articles selected over 2000-2021, we found an increase in the use of community-based participatory research, decolonial lenses, and feminist lenses. Over the last decade, there has been a decrease in quantitative social science approaches. While a range of critical theoretical and methodological approaches are increasingly being applied, the use of cultural resurgence and Indigenous feminism in health research is not widespread.
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 | 0.037 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".