MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594736581

An Indian Encounter: A Conversation with Jeannette Armstrong

2012· article· en· W1594736581 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Prem Kumari Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousArchivistConversationContext (archaeology)Performative utteranceMedia studiesSociologyIdentity (music)AnthropologyHistoryGender studiesPolitical scienceAestheticsArtArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jeannette Armstrong is an internationally recognized writer, teacher, artist, sculptor, and activist for Indigenous rights. Here, in robust detail, she describes her role and identity as a cultural archivist and knowledge keeper of the Okanagan – work she carries on in the tradition of her great aunt, Mourning Dove (Hum-Ishu-Ma), and that she has viewed as an academic responsibility since her teen years. Looking back to 1986, she discusses her founding vision of the En’owkin Centre in Penticton, British Columbia, a retreat where Indigenous artists and academics continue to work collaboratively towards the recovery of language and culture. In this conversation, Armstrong offers her views on the marginalization of Aboriginal cinema in Canada, the nature of the western canon, Okanagan oral literatures, and the mobilization of Indigenous systems of knowledge. In the context of the world’s current environmental crisis, Armstrong identifies an urgent need for increased attention to Indigenous perspectives.

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)0.010
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 score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0610.019
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian LiteratureSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207