Skennenko:wa - A Narrative Inquiry Into Experiences of Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous communities in Canada have long endured unethical research practices that have historically hindered rather than helped their communities. These non-reciprocal approaches stem from research being conducted on rather than with Indigenous populations, leading to the marginalization of Indigenous voices and perspectives. In an attempt to reconcile and move forward in a good way, there has been a shift to better understand and engage in ethical research. This narrative inquiry, grounded in community-based participatory research (CBPR), metaphorically and practically articulates how we worked relationally with a Knowledge Keeper and Indigenous organization to co-compose a culturally grounded physical health education program. This inquiry focused on honouring Indigenous voices, values, and perspectives was co-composed alongside the Kahnawà:ke School Diabetes Prevention Program and guided by Knowledge Keeper Amelia. With Amelia as co-author, this research highlights the ethical and relational complexities of merging Indigenous and Eurocentric perspectives within research. Framed within Dewey’s theory of experience and Clandinin’s three-dimensional narrative inquiry space, the inquiry incorporates the concept of “world-travelling” to articulate the relational complexity of cross-cultural research collaborations. Through open dialogue, collective analysis and shared learning, we engaged in the process of Ska’tne , meaning ‘working together,’ which offered us a path forward for ethical, community-engaged research rooted in respect and reciprocity. Additionally, conversations with Knowledge Keeper Amelia reflect on “skennenko:wa”, the Kanien’kéha concept of peace and balance, as a guiding principle for developing collaborative, culturally grounded PHE programming. By embracing a relational ontological commitment, this inquiry responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s call to action, encouraging researchers to engage meaningfully with Indigenous communities. Through telling and retelling stories, this research may provide an example of how to foster shared understanding and respectfully engage with Indigenous perspectives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".