MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015470102 · doi:10.1177/00084298090380030601

The Dakota Little People and the Tree-Dweller Dreamers: A matter of respect

2009· article· fr· W2015470102 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mark Ruml

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)HumanitiesEthnologyNarrativeHistoryArtSociologyArchaeologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While earlier authors tend to stress the malevolent aspects of the Little People, classifying them among the “Divinities of Evil,” a classification system which polarizes “good” and “evil” does not validly reflect the worldview of the Dakota. In this article, oral sources are informally utilized as the written sources, including previously unpublished narratives, are identified and examined in the context of the Dakota worldview. The Dakota phrase mitakuye owasį (“all my relatives”) is used to encapsulate the Dakota worldview and provide the interpretative framework. Alors que plusieurs auteurs accentuent les dimensions maléfiques du Petit Peuple, le classant parmi les « divinités du mal », il appert qu’un système classificatoire basé sur la polarité « bien » et « mal » ne rend pas compte de manière exacte de la vision du monde des Dakota. Dans cet article, des sources orales sont utilisées informellement tandis que des sources écrites, qui incluent des récits inédits, sont identifiées et examinée à partir de la vision du monde des Dakota. L’expression mitakuye owasį (« tous mes parents ») est ici utilisée à deux fins : rendre compte de la vision du monde des Dakota et fournir un cadre d’interprétation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207