MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404685633 · doi:10.22605/rrh8796

Wolastoqiyik adaptation of the Aaniish Naa Gegii: the Childrenâs Health and Well-Being Measure

2024· article· en· W4404685633 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabelle Bernard, Joline Guitard, Annie Roy‐Charland, Daniel Pelletier, Nancy L. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueRural and Remote Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioAssembly of First NationsUniversité de Moncton
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCHEO Research Institute
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Measure (data warehouse)PsychologyGerontologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Indigenous children in Canada represent one of the fastest-growing pediatric populations and experience severe health inequities. There is an ongoing need for new research on relevant methods to measure the health and wellbeing of Indigenous children that considers the cultural differences between communities. The Aaniish Naa Gegii: the Children's Health and Well-Being Measure (ACHWM) is a self-reported questionnaire that was developed to meet this need and to include the voices of Indigenous children. The purpose of this study was to assess the cultural relevance of the ACHWM for Wolastoqiyik children and to determine what revisions may be needed to ensure that the questions are well understood and culturally appropriate. METHODS: We recruited a community-based sample of nine Wolastoqiyik children (ages 8 to 16 years), two caregivers, and a community Elder within the Madawaska Maliseet First Nation community in New Brunswick. Through a process of cognitive debriefing, we probed children's comprehension of the 62 questions of the First Nation French version of the ACHWM. We analyzed the information reported to determine the participants' understandings relative to the other participants and to the original intent of the ACHWM content. RESULTS: Each of the nine children identified at least one item they recommended for revision during the interview. We observed similarities in the suggestions offered by several respondents. A total of 23 questions were considered, and 14 questions (22.6%) were modified, taking into consideration all participants' suggestions. CONCLUSION: While measures like the ACHWM offer useful information, relying solely on a 'one size fits all' Indigenous questionnaire is insufficient. Our findings underline the importance of having methods that are easily accessible, adaptable, and culturally appropriate for assessing and addressing Indigenous children's unique health and wellbeing. Such information allows clinicians to develop interventions that are culturally relevant, addressing children's individual needs within the context of their distinct cultural identity.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience 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 score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural and Remote HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207