The Noojamadaa Project: using visual research methods to elicit Indigenous women’s perspectives on healthy relationships and support reconciliation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous women experience higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV), when compared \nwith non-Indigenous women. Little research has focused on Indigenous women's perspectives of \nIPV. Three Northern Ontario First Nations communities wished to collaborate with researchers \non IPV research. To provide women’s perspectives on IPV, groups of participants were \nestablished in each community (n=3). Participants (n=23) chose to approach research on \nIPV from a strengths-based approach and, together with researchers, transformed the photovoice \nmethod to research according to Indigenous worldviews. Gaataa’aabing is a new visual research \nmethod which adapts to the cultural values of participants and emphasizes participant-desired \noutcomes as a required result of research. Video footage and images from group sessions on IPV \nwere used to create an educational video that promotes cultural safety for service providers who \nwork with Indigenous women, shares Indigenous women’s perspectives on healthy relationships, \nhighlights strengths which might help address IPV, and works toward reconciliation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".