From Protocols to Practice: Integrating Wahkohtowin and Keeoukaywin in Community-Based Research Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examining the community-engaged research of three Indigenous researchers (nêhiyaw and Métis) at varying stages of our academic journeys, this paper reviews and analyzes Indigenous research methodologies rooted in Indigenous practices, culture, and ways of knowing. We focus on storytelling and Talking Circles, guided by the principles of keeoukaywin—a nêhiyaw/Métis cultural practice of visiting—and wahkohtowin—a nêhiyaw/Métis concept of relationality. We share how our research endeavors are uniquely shaped by these methodologies, qualitative methods, and principles, despite our diverse interests, community partners, and place-based research contexts.
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 | 0.571 | 0.517 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".