Courage, compassion, and connection: evaluation of an Indigenous-led health services research project in Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A qualitative evaluation was conducted for the health services research project entitled Courage, Compassion, and Connection—The Journey to Healing: Exploring Cancer Pre-diagnosis for Indigenous Peoples in Labrador. The principle aim of the evaluation was to use the learnings from this Indigenous-led cancer care research project to make recommendations to inform and enhance future health services research with/in Labrador’s Indigenous communities. The Courage, Compassion, and Connection project is an important example of self-determination in health research, which the literature supports as integral to improving Indigenous health outcomes and equity. The present study used decolonizing research methodology consisting of a blend of Western and Indigenous evaluation approaches. Reflexive thematic analysis of data relating to project administration, community engagement, knowledge mobilization, and participant experience resulted in eight main themes. These were linked to five overarching recommendations (and specific sub-recommendations): (1) Ensure the project timeline allows for meaningful community engagement, (2) Focus on building strong relationships, (3) Develop an understanding of why community members may or may not engage in research, (4) Draw on community connections, knowledge, and experience, and (5) Prioritize accountability to the communities involved. Finally, the evaluation is also used to make a case for sufficient and sustainable funding for Indigenous-led health research in Canada.
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 | 0.120 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".