MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108254396 · doi:10.1177/1206331212451536

Walking Back Into Creation

2013· article· en· W2108254396 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joe Sheridan

Bibliographic record

VenueSpace and Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTreatyColonialismTraditional knowledgeDutyEnvironmental ethicsIndigenous cultureIndigenous rightsEthnologyGeographySociologyPolitical scienceHistoryLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the field of environmental studies has grown consistently over the past 50 years in Canada, it still remains distanced from Indigenous cultures, resulting in a lopsided and biased understanding of Indigenous knowledges. Haudenosaunee tradition configured the first treaty in North America, the Two Row Wampum, which is based on the principle of sharing land and knowledge. Honoring the original spirit and intention of the Two Row Wampum Treaty would involve duty not alliegance to whatever treaty pertains to the traditional territory environmental studies buildings now occupy. Refusal to recognize the spirit of traditional territories also indicates an unwillingness to extend this respect to include Indigenous knowledge practitioners, which further cements the apartheid practiced in environmental studies in North America. Environmental studies originated on Turtle Island with Indigenous peoples teaching settlers minobimadziwin: the good life of the bush. Lack of due acknowledgment of Indigenous cultures sustains environmental apartheid and so preserves the colonial legacy of environmental studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.020
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.008

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpace and CultureSame topicEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and BeyondFrench-language works237,207