Mental health implementation research in Indigenous communities: creating culturally safe space to enhance collective strengths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we discuss the construct of cultural safety in relation to the ethics, politics, and practice of implementation research in Indigenous communities. We convened a 3-day workshop, bringing together 23 Indigenous and non-Indigenous collaborators from First Nation communities and universities across Canada to reflect on experiences with implementing an Indigenous youth and family mental health promotion program in First Nation communities. Participants identified three dimensions central to achieving culturally safe space in implementation research: (1) interpersonal dynamics of collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners; (2) structural and temporal arrangements necessary for collaborative work; and (3) the systematic recognition and incorporation of Indigenous cultural knowledge, values, and practices. Within implementation research, attention to cultural safety can mitigate the epistemic injustice that arise from research frameworks and methodologies that exclude Indigenous perspectives and values. Cultural safety can increase the likelihood that the research process itself contributes to mental health promotion.
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 | 0.249 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".