Indigenous Community Views of Disability in Canada: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Indigenous people do not necessarily view disability in the same way as do other groups. Indigenous concepts of disability are connected to their ancestral history, cultural customs, and environmental context. Some Indigenous languages do not contain a word equivalent to disability. Western approaches to disability seldom reflect the voices of Indigenous people. OBJECTIVE The objective of this scoping review is to collate the perspectives, concepts, and understandings of disability in Indigenous communities in Canada and to map the factors that influence social approaches to disability from an Indigenous perspective. METHODS Following the methodological framework for scoping reviews of Arksey and O’Malley, we will search electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost ProQuest, Autochtonia, and APA PsycINFO. We will search gray literature through the Google search engine, conference abstracts, dissertation databases, government documents, and Indigenous organization websites. We will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies in English and French. The included studies will describe Indigenous approaches to disability, as they are understood based on personal, cultural, and historical contexts. Two reviewers will use Covidence software (Cochrane) to remove duplicates, screen articles, record the step-by-step selection process, and extract data from the included articles. We will follow the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We will present the findings in tables, charts, narrative summaries, and through fuzzy cognitive mapping. We will contextualize the literature’s findings by comparing them with the stakeholders in Quebec and provide a discussion to explore potential solutions for the identified factors. RESULTS An initial limited search was conducted in January 2024. The study will be conducted in 2025. Publication of the results is expected in late 2025. CONCLUSIONS We anticipate that the findings from the scoping review will be useful for professionals, researchers, policy makers, and Indigenous communities themselves interested in co-designing and implementing evidence-informed disability programs and services, which will prevent mismatches between the programs and the sociocultural context. We will disseminate the results of this review through workshops with the participating communities, direct engagement with relevant local stakeholders, and through conference presentations and publications in scientific journals. CLINICALTRIAL OSF Registries osf.io/9rzkx; https://osf.io/9rzkx INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/57590
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 | 0.108 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.020 |
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".