Métis women’s health and wellbeing scoping review: resurgence in action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Métis (one of three constitutionally recognized Indigenous Peoples in Canada) women's health and wellbeing research that centers resurgence, resistance, kinship, land, and place offers an intersectional perspective that interrupts deficit-based health narratives. To understand these intersections and emerging pathways, we conducted a Métis women's health and wellbeing scoping review to get an overall picture of breadth and depth of published articles since 2010. 29 articles fit our scoping criteria. Our findings show that Métis women's health and wellbeing research offers insight into what Métis women are saying about their own health and wellbeing. They also demonstrate the pivots to broader understanding of identity and gender beyond binary norms, to engagement with two national inquiries, partnerships with political organizations, and COVID-19. The growing uptake on positionality reflects the ways in which Métis-centered epistemologies, methodologies, theories, and methods intersect with Métis women's health and wellbeing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".