Decolonizing Evaluation of Indigenous Guidance and Counseling Approaches: A Review of Selected Evaluated Programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of Indigenization of research has been increasingly explored in recent studies, with emphasis placed on the ontological, epistemological, and axiological perspectives of Indigenous peoples to find effective solutions to their challenges. This also applies to the evaluation of guidance and counseling approaches in Africa and other nations, where Indigenous therapies are developed based on different philosophical foundations, such as Ubuntu (Africa). Relational ontologies and epistemologies appear to be common across various Indigenous nations in Africa, Australia, Canada, and North America. This article analyzes studies from these regions on evaluations of Indigenous guidance and counseling therapies. The majority of the evaluations use conventional paradigmatic assumptions in their approach, rather than relational models that are participatory and respectful of participants’ worldviews, including the living, non-living, metaphysical, and spiritual aspects of Indigenous people. However, the Indigenous therapeutic programs analyzed in this study incorporate culturally appropriate activities and curricula that align with relational axioms. This article proposes the use of relational models of evaluation to assess Indigenous counseling programs, where researchers can draw conclusions that align with the cultural contexts of the Indigenous people being researched.
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.
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 | 0.030 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it