The measurement of culture and its relation to health and wellbeing outcomes for Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the United States: A rapid scoping review protocol
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this rapid scoping review is to understand how the measurement of culture relates to health and wellbeing outcomes for Indigenous Peoples. Introduction: Culture is inextricably linked to how Indigenous Peoples conceptualize health (Gall et al., 2021). Recent reviews demonstrate that there is a positive association between culture and health (Bourke et al., 2018; Doery et al., 2023), though this is not true for all individual studies. The nature of culture makes it a difficult construct to define and measure (Salmon et al., 2019). It could be that the measurement of culture, whether by validated scale or proxy, impacts the presence, strength, or direction of an association with health. Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed quantitative studies published within the last 10 years will be included if they involve (1) participants from Turtle Island: First Nations, Inuit, Métis, Native American, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian, (2) one or more measures of culture, (3) one or more measures of health or wellbeing, and (3) an examination of the relationship between culture and health. Non-English articles, grey literature, text and opinion pieces, dissertations, qualitative research, articles for which the full text cannot be reasonably accessed, and research conducted outside of Canada and the United States will be excluded. Methods: Rapid scoping reviews are, by their nature, limited by resource constraints and thus some compromises in methodological rigour are made to increase feasibility (Tricco et al., 2017). The final search strategies and databases (Medline and Scopus) will be revised and refined based on consultation with experts. A two-stage screening process for titles and abstracts, then full texts, and data extraction will be conducted in Covidence. There is currently no extension to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) or other standards that are specific to rapid scoping reviews. The PRISMA-ScR (for Scoping Reviews) will be used and, in line with recommendations by Tricco et al. (2017), transparency in reporting will be prioritized.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it