MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406696507 · doi:10.1186/s12939-025-02387-5

We cannot repeat history again: a call to action to centre indigenous leadership as we prepare for the next pandemic

2025· article· en· W4406696507 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristy Crooks, Fatima Ahmed, Eric N. Liberda, Peter Massey, Kylie Taylor, Celine Sutherland, Gisele Kataquapit, Katrina Clark, Nicholas D. Spence, Robert J. Moriarity, Hannah Briggs, Leonard J. S. Tsuji, Nadia A. Charania

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Equity in Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityAssembly of First NationsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIndigenousPandemicCall to actionHealth services researchPublic healthSocial policyPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicinePublic relationsSociologyBusinessNursingBiologyLawDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous communities worldwide continue to disproportionately bear the burden during pandemics due to ongoing health inequities and systemic exclusion from pandemic decision-making processes. As the global community prepares for the next pandemic, it is critical to prioritise Indigenous leadership and governance within public health responses. This commentary highlights successful models of Indigenous-led pandemic responses during COVID-19 in Canada and Australia. It introduces the EPIC (Equity, Partnerships, Intelligences, and Change) framework, that emphasises equity, leadership and local and cultural intelligence as critical components to improve pandemic preparedness and response for Indigenous communities. This international collaboration calls on governments and health authorities to uphold Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, and leadership in pandemic planning and response efforts.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.173 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Equity in HealthSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207