MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030242859 · doi:10.1558/rsth.v28i2.189

Birds Hill Park, the Dakota Eagle Sundance, and the Sweatlodge: Establishing a Sacred Site in a Provincial Park

2010· article· en· W2030242859 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Ruml

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies and Theology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEagleIndigenousWhite (mutation)CeremonyDoveGeographyEnvironmental ethicsArchaeologyHistorySociologyPolitical scienceLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little scholarly analysis has been made of the processes involved in returning Indigenous sacred locales to contemporary religious usage. In this paper, a historical and descriptive sketch is provided of the institutional and personal systems in place in the recovery of a Dakota sundance site in Birds Hill Provincial Park. After several meetings with various officials from the Manitoba Department of Conservation the White Buffalo Spiritual Society was given permission to hold a sundance ceremony at Birds Hill Provincial Park, located approximately twenty kilometers north of the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. From 2000 until 2007 an annual sundance and regular sweatlodge ceremonies were held at a site in the Park selected by members of the White Buffalo Spiritual Society in consultation with Conservation officials. This article outlines significant events in the process of establishing and maintaining a sacred space in a Provincial Park, introduces the reader to the Dakota Eagle sundance, and notes the reasons why the sundance and sweatlodge ceremonies are viewed as important for the individual and community well-being.

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)0.001
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 score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligious Studies and TheologySame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207