MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401015689 · doi:10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104429

“It Matters Who Defines It”—Defining Nutrition through American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Worldviews

2024· article· en· W4401015689 on OpenAlex
Tara L. Maudrie, Kaylee R. Clyma, Cassandra J. Nguyen, Victoria M. O’Keefe, Martin Reinhardt, Valerie Segrest, Melissa E. Lewis, Toni Stanger-McLaughlin, Nicole Redvers, Phoebe Young, Hope Flanagan, Electa L. Hare-RedCorn, Elsie M. Dubray, Alanna Norris, Kaylena E. Bray, Valarie Blue Bird Jernigan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsFoodwaysIndigenousMainstreamFocus groupConceptual frameworkTraditional knowledgeAcculturationPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceAnthropologyEcologyEthnic group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Adequately assessing nutrition is deeply important for understanding and addressing health inequities, especially for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) peoples who have been subjected to the malnourishing effects of settler colonialism. Mainstream approaches to nutrition rely heavily on indicators of physical diet consumption, while ignoring the contributions of food to spiritual, social, and emotional health. Considering only physical aspects of dietary consumption paints a narrow picture of AI/AN/NH foodways and nutritional health further contributing to deficit-based narratives about AI/AN/NH peoples. To adequately understand and address the nutritional health of AI/AN/NHs, strengths-based approaches to nutrition that are rooted in Indigenous ways of knowing are urgently needed. Objective To define nutrition through AI/AN/NH worldviews. Methods Three focus group discussions (n = 3) and in-depth interviews (n = 6) were conducted with 26 purposively identified AI/AN/NH food sovereignty experts and knowledge holders. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively. Through a process of open, focused, and axial coding, primary themes and supporting sub-themes were established and refined, and a conceptual framework (the Indigenous Nourishment Framework) was developed to reflect the relationships between primary themes, sub-themes, and the overall meaning of nourishment for AI/AN/NHs. Results The Indigenous Nourishment Model contains four main domains of nourishment (Physical, Spiritual, Emotional, and Relational), and 8 sub-themes representing concepts, practices and beliefs which contribute to overall nourishment. Conclusions Despite the importance of physical aspects of nutrition, our findings assert that spiritual, emotional, and relational wellbeing are inseparable and integral to the overall goal of nourishment for AI/AN/NHs. The resulting Indigenous Nourishment Framework developed with a diverse group of AI/AN/NH food knowledge holders reflects the strengths of AI/AN/NH foodways and builds upon existing approaches to nutrition by offering new directions for approaching and measuring nutrition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.352 · 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