Review: Exploring the application of the capability approach to the health and well-being of Indigenous Peoples: a scoping review — R0/PR3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review synthesizes existing literature on the application of the capability approach (CA) to address the health and well-being of Indigenous Peoples across the globe. Academic and grey literature searches led to the identification of 20 papers for inclusion in the review. Findings reveal a growing interest in applying the CA to Indigenous health and well-being research, highlighting its potential to guide interventions and policies. The included studies indicate that the CA has been applied to individual capabilities such as facilitating access to services and collective capabilities linked to identity and traditional knowledge preservation. A key finding across the reviewed literature is the importance of incorporating Indigenous values into defining programmes and policies aimed at improving Indigenous Peoples’ well-being. The review underscores the varied application of the CA by researchers aligning with the position of either Sen or Nussbaum, leading to contrasting methodological approaches. Results underscore the CA’s potential as a culturally sensitive framework for participatory and locally embedded development of well-being interventions and policies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".