MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416427052 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2025.16.2.18451

What we learned from the Nokomisag/Grandmothers

2025· article· en· W4416427052 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kendra L. Rieger, Mabel Horton, Lillian Cook, Sherry Copenace, Marlyn Bennett, Wanda Phillips-Beck, Anna M. Chudyk, Bobbie Hornan, Tara C. Horrill, Janice Linton, K. McPherson, Jennifer Moore Rattray, Kealy Murray, R. K. Sinclair, Kathleen Lounsbury, Jessica Wilson, Annette Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityUniversity of ManitobaAssembly of First NationsFirst Nations Health and Social Secretariat of ManitobaManitoba HealthUniversity of CalgaryTrinity College
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStorytellingIndigenousReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Traditional knowledgeField (mathematics)Embodied cognitionIndigenous education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Four R principles (4Rs) of respect, responsibility, relevance, and reciprocity were developed in the field of education by Kirkness and Barnhardt and have guided respectful approaches in research. Our purpose was to adapt the 4Rs for storytelling methods in Indigenous health research and identify associated exemplary research practices. Indigenous team members drew on their traditional Cree and Anishinaabemowin languages to formulate revised 4R definitions tailored to storytelling in health research and our location on Turtle Island, Treaty One territory. We used this adapted 4R framework to identify and analyze patterns of exemplary practices in studies (N=178) using storytelling methods. Our findings can guide respectful storytelling research to meaningfully incorporate Indigenous perspectives for the well-being and benefit of Indigenous communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207