MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116923088 · doi:10.1002/alz70860_098932

Brain Health Promotion with Métis People in Alberta: a qualitative study

2025· article· en· W7116923088 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pamela Roach, Shanaya Fischer, Meagan Ody, Lisa Zaretsky, Jennifer Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousQualitative researchDementiaIntervention (counseling)Scale (ratio)Work (physics)Culturally appropriateHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The quality of culturally appropriate brain health promotion materials Indigenous people in Canada is lacking. Canada's National Dementia Strategy calls for additional work to improve brain health promotion and dementia prevention for Indigenous people as a priority. Health promotion and healthy brain aging for Indigenous communities also needs to be understood in a distinctions-based and culturally specific way. Providing brain health promotion materials that are strengths-based, while also being grounded in Indigenous knowledge systems and experiences is an urgent priority in Canadian health systems and plays an important part in enhancing patient safety and closing gaps in health inequities. The primary outcome of this project was to develop understanding regarding how the Brain Health Pro can be adapted to a Métis context in the province of Alberta, Canada. METHOD: Our overarching ethical approach embeds integrated knowledge translation into the development and implementation of brain health promotion material so that the research outcomes are directly applicable and useful to communities. Interviews were completed using the Métis visiting methodology (Keeoukaywin) to allow for the emergence of new themes. Data was co-analysed using Indigenous approaches to thematic qualitative analysis. RESULT: Twenty Métis people in Alberta participated in a total of 63 interviews between July and November 2024. Participants felt that the current content and mode of delivery of Brain Health Pro was not appropriate for Métis people living in Alberta. Themes included a western dominance of brain health (including a lack of Indigenous people in the video content, no Métis Ways of Knowing; a lack of non-virtual options (for those who may not have reliable internet access); and a need for holistic approaches to risk reduction (e.g. berry picking could provide physical activity, social interaction and healthy traditional food options and be an avenue for intergenerational knowledge mobilization). CONCLUSION: The work will be developed to facilitate spread, scale and adaption to other local Indigenous contexts. Additionally, the principles and methodology may be applied internationally to develop locally driven and culturally specific dementia care intervention for Indigenous populations or other underrepresented populations.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→