MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413884863 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093608

What are the Aboriginal worldviews of disability in the Fitzroy Valley? Aboriginal Participatory Action Research to develop strategies for decolonising disability services

2025· article· en· W4413884863 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Stubbs, Mudge Bedford, Emma Bear, Emily Carter, Anita Pickard, Jadnah Davies, Sue Thomas, Alexandra Martiniuk, Elizabeth Elliott, Lauren Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilIan Potter FoundationDavid and Elaine Potter Foundation
KeywordsParticipatory action researchFocus groupMedicineCitizen journalismMedical model of disabilityThematic analysisSociologyQualitative researchPsychiatryPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living with disability have unequal access to health and disability support services. The impacts of colonialism and the deficit-based, Western medical model of disability have been identified as barriers to services in remote Aboriginal communities. This study explored different perceptions of disability and identified strategies to help bridge the gap between Aboriginal community members in the Fitzroy Valley and Western health and disability support services. DESIGN: Aboriginal Participatory Action Research approach with in-depth interviews. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Preliminary results were presented to community representatives for contextualisation, validation and to co-design recommendations. SETTING: Fitzroy Valley in the Kimberley region, Western Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Aboriginal community members with lived experience of disability (n=7) and health and disability support service providers (n=12). RESULTS: Eight themes were identified: (1) Aboriginal kinship systems are a community strength and support for people living with disability; (2) Aboriginal people from the Fitzroy Valley perceive disability as a social construct; (3) Western medical model of disability differs from Aboriginal perceptions of disability; (4) Aboriginal people from the Fitzroy Valley perceive different types of disabilities in various ways; (5) good awareness of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the Fitzroy Valley, but more education is wanted; (6) focus on functional needs and supports for disability; (7) barriers to disability services and (8) decolonise disability services. Community co-designed recommendations focus on centring the Aboriginal worldviews of disability in the Fitzroy Valley. CONCLUSIONS: Decolonising disability services is needed to improve access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This should involve adapting the current Western medical model of services to enable strengths-based diagnostic and support services that align with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kinship systems, cultures and ways of being. Community leadership must play a central role in this shift.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→