Exploring Collaborative Approaches to Indigenous Science Outreach Programs on Turtle Island: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Past and recent calls to action (e.g., Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) call for inclusion of Indigenous Peoples, including residential school Survivors, in all stages/phases of program development and education. Objective(s): This scoping review identifies and maps the extent (i.e., level) of collaboration reported in published accounts of science outreach programming targeting Indigenous youth on Turtle Island (North America) between 2010 and 2022. Additionally, this review lists and describes program evaluation methods reported. Methods: Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) scoping review methodology was applied. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Education Research Complete (ERC), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), CBCA Complete (ProQuest), SocINDEX (EBSCO), Google Scholar, and Google were searched for science outreach programs targeting Indigenous youth on Turtle Island between 2010 and 2022. Each program’s process and methods were identified. A scoring schema was developed in collaboration with community members to map these data by extent of community collaboration (three categories; 0 = none, 1 = some, 2 = full). Results: In total, 20 programs were identified, and 12 (n = 12/20) programs met criteria for full collaboration during program development and implementation, while eight (n = 8/20) did not. Of the 12 programs, six (n = 6/20) programs reported collaborative evaluation. Diverse evaluation methods were reported and are described. Moreover, 15 (n = 15/20) programs were identified as taking place post 2015, with four (n = 4/15) being Canadian programs. Conclusions: A total of 20 STEM programs targeting Indigenous youth on Turtle Island were identified in this review. Although 60% of the programs reported collaboration during development and implementation of programming, only 30% collaborated with community during program evaluation. These findings are supportive of the need for ongoing education and research on collaboration with Indigenous communities at all stages of intervention/program development.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".