Protocol of a Scoping Review: The Health Benefits of Cultural Practices involving Human Interconnection within Nature for Indigenous Peoples in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States and Canada, Indigenous peoples (IP) are disproportionately impacted by health disparities and inequities exacerbated by historical and ongoing colonial oppression. Community-led and empirical evidence reveals that IP engagement with cultural practices that involve human interconnectedness within Nature (CP HIWN; e.g., hunting, gathering, ceremony) can have positive impacts on human health. The purpose of this scoping review is to summarize what is known about the health benefits of IP engagement with CP HIWN. This scoping review will synthesize the literature on health benefits of CP HIWN using an Indigenous centered, community-based approach. This examination will provide knowledge for a broad audience of Indigenous and non-Indigenous healthcare providers, researchers, clinicians and community members. We advance this scoping review using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, the guidelines set forth by the Joanna Briggs Institute, and approach it with Indigenous theoretical frameworks/methods as an intentional process of decolonizing knowing. We will search electronic databases and reference lists for empirical research and grey literature. PRISMA-ScR is used for reporting. Our search includes English language literature and is open to all sources, including but not limited to reviews, commentaries, study design, meta-analyses, dissertations, books and tribal reports. Three independent reviewers will screen sources for inclusion and extract data using a tool developed by the research team. We will use a community-based approach to seek Indigenous community leaders (including elders, knowledge keepers, and others engaged in related work) subject matter expertise to confirm the major findings of the review and to help identify gaps in the research base. The protocol process is Indigenous and student-led, and the scoping review includes majority Indigenous authors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".