Integrating culture: evaluating the process to adapt evidence-based programs for Indigenous mothers & children impacted by intimate partner violence in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To conduct a process evaluation of a pilot intervention program, culturally adapted using a Two-eyed Seeing approach, and designed specifically for Indigenous mothers and their school-aged children who have been impacted by intimate partner violence (IPV) and who are living in Calgary, Alberta in Treaty 7 Territory. Background: IPV perpetuated against Indigenous women in Canada is a persistent public health issue and human right abuse, with serious impacts for women, their children, their families, and society as a whole. Alberta ranked fourth highest among the ten provinces in 2020 for its rates of IPV and services, including Calgary’s shelters, are bursting at capacity. Sorely lacking is programming that is a) culturally integrated for an Indigenous population, b) evidence-based, c) specific to IPV, and d) being delivered to both mothers and their children concurrently. Research Design: The first research question addressed the perspectives of and lessons learned by those involved in the adaptation process. The second question investigated how the culturally responsive elements or concepts of the adapted programs were chosen, particularly around fit, familiarity, and meaningfulness. The results shone a light on how the effort to build relationships, renegotiate power, and integrate Indigenous cultural representation would come to define how the process through it went for the team. Six themes were identified from the transcripts: Power, Adaptation Barriers, Relationship Building, The Learning Journey, Integrating Indigenous Cultures, and Outcomes of the Adaptation Process. Conclusion: Bringing to light the experiences of those involved in this adaptation process, allowed for a deeper understanding of the positive and negative aspects of how the process unfolded, and provided clear recommendations concerning how others may undertake a similar process for their own communities. Creating a map of how it can be done is one way research becomes reciprocal with potential benefits for generations to come.
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 | 0.057 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".