MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976421268 · doi:10.1525/jer.2006.1.3.27

The Importance of Story-Telling: Research Protocols in Aboriginal Communities

2006· article· en· W1976421268 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah C. Poff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBetrayalIdentity (music)SociologyPublic relationsPsychologyMedia studiesSocial psychologyPolitical scienceAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AN ORAL TRADITION AND STORY TELLING CULTURE are still central to aboriginal personal and community identity, and provide major means of remembering and conveying personal and community experience with university researchers. These stories describe stark accounts of betrayal and upset, as well as descriptions of positive experiences. They provide dramatic reminders to researchers of the importance of respectful and collaborative relationships with traditional community leaders and their members.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.278
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2780.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.011
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.022
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 head0.699
GPT teacher head0.701
Teacher spread0.002 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research EthicsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207