MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W18759002 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2014.5.4.6

“What is the Spirit of this Gathering?” Indigenous Sport Policy-Makers and Self-Determination in Canada

2014· article· en· W18759002 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Braden P Te Hiwi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPromotion (chess)Government (linguistics)Perspective (graphical)Self-determinationPolitical sciencePolicy developmentSociologyPublic relationsPublic administrationLawPoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I examine how the process of Indigenous participation in policy-making pertaining to the development of federal sport policy in Canada is connected to Indigenous forms of self-determination. By conducting semi-structured interviews with six Indigenous sport policy-makers, I investigate how their respective thoughts, experiences, and actions shape their perspective on self-determination. My analysis shows that a focus on relationships was at the center of the interviewed Indigenous sport policy-makers’ approaches to the promotion of Indigenous self-determination. Furthermore, the relational nature of Indigenous policy-makers’ identities was also central to their pursuit of self-determination. The promotion of family and community type relationships with government representatives could be used as an outcome of policy-making, in addition to traditional policy directives.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0430.030
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207