“We don’t separate out these things. Everything is related”: Partnerships with Indigenous Communities to Design, Implement, and Evaluate Multilevel Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities
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
Multilevel interventions (MLIs) are appropriate to reduce health disparities among Indigenous peoples because of their ability to address these communities' diverse histories, dynamics, cultures, politics, and environments. Intervention science has highlighted the importance of context-sensitive MLIs in Indigenous communities that can prioritize Indigenous and local knowledge systems and emphasize the collective versus the individual. This paradigm shift away from individual-level focus interventions to community-level focus interventions underscores the need for community engagement and diverse partnerships in MLI design, implementation, and evaluation. In this paper, we discuss three case studies addressing how Indigenous partners collaborated with researchers in each stage of the design, implementation, and evaluation of MLIs to reduce health disparities impacting their communities. We highlight the following: (1) collaborations with multiple, diverse tribal partners to carry out MLIs which require iterative, consistent conversations over time; (2) inclusion of qualitative and Indigenous research methods in MLIs as a way to honor Indigenous and local knowledge systems as well as a way to understand a health disparity phenomenon in a community; and (3) relationship building, maintenance, and mutual respect among MLI partners to reconcile past research abuses, prevent extractive research practices, decolonize research processes, and generate co-created knowledge between Indigenous and academic communities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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