Remote Food Security Research Project: Applying an Indigenist Research Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aimed to reflect on how Rigney's model of Indigenist research informed the research design of a project which explored community-led solutions to improve food security in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The project was conducted in partnership with two Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs); Apunipima Cape York Health Council (Apunipima) and Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (Congress), communities in Central Australia and Cape York, Queensland and researchers from the University of Queensland, Monash University, Dalhousie University and Menzies School of Health Research. On reflection the principles of Indigenist research were evident providing a means of resistance to oppression through Indigenous stakeholders being in control of research to address social determinants, in this case food security. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander world views, lived experiences and knowledges were embedded in the research and informed governance, implementation and knowledge translation. ACCHOs and communities gained a political voice through advocacy and actions at the local, state and national levels. The development of a Community Framework led by ACCHOs and community stakeholders to address food security serves to talk to the three principles of 'Resistance, Political Integrity and Privileging Indigenous Voices'.
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 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 | 0.038 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".