MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081068395 · doi:10.1177/0020872810372160

‘Indigenization’ and knowledge development: Extending the debate

2010· article· en· W2081068395 on OpenAlexaff
Mel Gray, John Coates

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Social Work · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenizationPositivismSociologyEpistemologyField (mathematics)Work (physics)Social sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article attempts to extend the discourse on ‘indigenization’ from a marginal movement in social work to chart its course as a field of knowledge development that uses knowledge, training and resources that is particular to a culture and in which increasing numbers of leading researchers creatively pursue culturally and locally relevant research. It argues for the development of truly indigenized and culturally appropriate social work knowledges that are free from the restrictions and expectations of positivistic western worldviews.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0130.228
Scholarly communication0.0300.069
Open science0.0060.038
Research integrity0.0120.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.342 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations124
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Social WorkSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207