MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027179725

Concepts of wellness: a protocol for a scoping review of Indigenous perspectives on wellness in Canada Files Wiki Analytics Registrations Contributors Add-ons Settings Concepts of wellness: a protocol for a scoping review of Indigenous perspectives on wellness in Canada

2020· other· en· W7027179725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousProtocol (science)AnalyticsIndigenous cultureDescriptive researchDescriptive statistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous communities are often portrayed from a deficit-based lens, however, many Indigenous communities have self-determined perspectives of health and well-being that are strength-based. The objective of our scoping review is to gain an understanding of Canadian Indigenous perspectives of concepts of well-being in the written word. Key descriptive variables of interest for inquiry related to Canadian Indigenous well-being. We hope to deepen our understanding of how Indigenous communities define wellness and well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary IssuesFrench-language works237,207