Issues of language across the cultural [and colonial] divide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How people come to name themselves is an important act of identity. How others name them is a political act. For example, names used for 'First Nations' people may be an act of respect as they become more aware of the political meaning (and sometimes racist intention) embedded in language, or yet another form of neocolonialism. In addition, what is appropriate 'naming' shifts over time. As an example, in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, this shift has in recent times been part of the struggle of many Indigenous peoples for self- determination and for the elimination of racism. In addressing these issues, the editors wish: 1. to alert readers to the fact that there are differences across the three countries that might cause offence, but are in fact appropriate in the country of origin; and, 2. to point out to readers where authors have made judicious decisions about the use of language. (non-author abstract)
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 | 0.036 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".