Understanding the Role of Researchers in Engaging and Communicating Sciences with Inuit Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, Inuit and non-Inuit researchers have worked in partnerships to conduct research that give voice to non-Western knowledge systems. However, studies show that although many researchers demonstrate a keen interest in engaging with Inuit youth, they often lack the resources and communication skills to do so. This study aims to assess the perspectives of experts on the role of researchers in engaging and communicating sciences with Inuit youth. This study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and a modified Delphi method to explore the perspectives of experts, including researchers, educators, members of Inuit organizations, public servants, and communication specialists. Findings show that the role of researchers in engaging and communicating sciences with Inuit youth is to build relationships based on trust, to work in the spirit of co-creation, to create opportunities for research capacity building, and to develop resources to support meaningful youth engagement in Arctic research.
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 | 0.074 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".