MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7123923740 · doi:10.1093/heapro/daaf229

Promoting self-determined Indigenous data governance in Canada: the Métis Health Research and Data Governance Principles

2025· article· en· W7123923740 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert Henry, Chelsea Gabel, Caroline Tait, Kiera Kowalski, Alexandra Nychuk

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNoda Institute for Scientific ResearchSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationNorthwestern University
KeywordsCorporate governanceIndigenousData governanceSovereigntyHealth dataInformation governanceFocus (optics)Data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population-level data collection is crucial to advance Indigenous rights and sovereignty but requires localized approaches to develop representative datasets. In Canada, a focus on First Nations research and data governance and principles has led to the underrepresentation of Métis realities and a reliance on data governance models that fail to address their unique cultural, historical, and community-specific needs. "The Saskatchewan Métis Health Research and Data Governance Principles©" were developed to guide Métis research and promote Métis data sovereignty. While these principles share similarities with the First Nations Principles of OCAP®, they emphasize Métis-specific priorities such as capacity building and active engagement with Métis rights holders. These principles provide a framework for Métis health research, ensuring that Métis values and perspectives are embedded throughout the research lifecycle.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207