Putting the theory of Kanataron:non into practice: Teaching Indigenous governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within a context of 150 years of external Canadian government interference in their local affairs, a northeastern North American Mohawk community called ‘Kanata’ is steeped in a tradition for resisting external Canadian government control. A two-year study of governance by the people of Kanata used action research with critical learning methods to investigate the feasibility of returning to traditional decision-making processes. The tribal council formed a research team to produce workshops, focus groups, interviews, and simulations using cultural forms recognizable to the participants. Using the collaboratively designed research methods the research demonstrated that individuals had knowledge of their governance heritage and willingly learned detailed aspects of the governing process. The research also determined that Kanata's people were pragmatic and understood that a return to traditional governance faced longstanding rivalries and divisions in the community. The research identified the view among the participants that teaching smaller groups consensus-building begins with the leadership of the tribal council using the traditional decision-making model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".