MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062881596

Value of Community Partnership for Understanding Stress and Coping in Rural Yupâik Communities: The CANHR Study

2010· article· en· W7062881596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)General partnershipMental healthFocus groupConfidentialityGrounded theoryCommunity-based participatory researchRural area
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress and trauma can compromise physical and mental health. Rural Alaska Native communities have voiced concern about stressful and traumatic events and their effects on health. The goal of the Yup’ik Experiences of Stress and Coping Project is to develop an in-depth understanding of experiences of stress and ways of coping in Yup’ik communities. The long-range goal is to use project findings to develop and implement a community-informed and culturally grounded intervention to reduce stress and promote physical and mental health in rural Alaska Native communities. This paper introduces a long-standing partnership between the Yukon-Kuskokwim Regional Health Corporation, rural communities it serves, and the Center for Alaska Native Health Research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Within the context of the Stress and Coping project, we then discuss the value and challenges of taking a CBPR approach to advance science and address a priority community concern, and share strategies to respond to challenges. Focus groups were conducted to culturally adapt an existing structured interview and daily diary protocol to better fit Yup’ik ways of knowing. As modified, these interviews increased understanding of stress and coping particular to two Yup’ik communities. Challenges included the geographical nature of Yup’ik communities, communication barriers, competing priorities, and confidentiality issues. Community participation was central in the development of the study protocol, helped ensure that the research was culturally appropriate and relevant to the community, and facilitated access to participant knowledge and rich data to inform intervention development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207