MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989037394 · doi:10.1177/1077800409333392

Common Insights, Differing Methodologies

2009· article· en· W1989037394 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismAction researchSociologyFace (sociological concept)Object (grammar)Action (physics)Work (physics)Political scienceAnthropologySocial scienceEcologyComputer sciencePedagogyEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we discuss three broad research approaches: indigenous methodologies, participatory action research, and White studies. We suggest that a fusion of these three approaches can be useful, especially in terms of collaborative work with indigenous communities. More specifically, we argue that using indigenous methodologies and participatory action research, but refocusing the object of inquiry directly and specifically on the institutions and structures that indigenous peoples face, can be a particularly effective way of transforming indigenous peoples from the objects of inquiry to its authors. A case study focused on the development of appropriate research methods for a collaborative project with the urban aboriginal communities of the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia, Canada, provides an illustration of the methodological fusion we propose.

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.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.270 · 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