MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400229636 · doi:10.24124/2024/59524

Navigating landscapes of care: Pathways to perinatal well-being for young people living in the Widzin Kwah watershed in northern British Columbia

2024· dissertation· en· W4400229636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelsey Chamberlin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsWatershedGeographyCartographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

,Rooted in an anticolonial and community-informed approach and drawing on determinants of health frameworks, my research asked: How do young people experience perinatal well-being in rural, northern, and Indigenous geographies? My research took place in the Widzin Kwah (Bulkley-Morice) watershed and used qualitative inquiry and a methodology of weaving. Data was analyzed through a process of tracing and weaving threads (akin to iterative thematic analysis) to identify patterns and generate a woven and place-based research tapestry that integrates participants’ lived experience and expertise with broader scholarship and literature. I also used self-reflexive journaling and member checking as methods of accountability and iterative learning. I present my research findings as a woven tapestry that documents ways young folks’ well-being during pregnancy, birth, and early parenting is borne and enlivened by landscapes of care within and beyond the Widzin Kwah watershed. To close, I take the tapestry off the loom and offer reflections on generative possibilities for collectively working toward reproductive justice for young people living in northern BC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207