MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126873028

Decolonization and Liminality: A Reflective Process for Research as a Cooperative and Ethical Practice

2013· article· en· W2126873028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Buchanan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Leadership Accountability and Ethics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalityDecolonizationFeelingPerceptionSpace (punctuation)SociologyProcess (computing)PsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceAnthropologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A researcher working with a Native nation in Canada required an exploration and awareness of decolonization not only in her experience, but also in the progression of the research. She became aware that decolonization was important for the “settler” as well as those living with the impact of colonization. This awareness was both welcome and unwelcome as the researcher was plunged into “crossing the divide” and examining what she thought she knew. Decolonization is significant work and requires that liminal space to progress and allow beliefs, and perceptions to surface the difficult and at times uncomfortable feelings that come.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.367
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Leadership Accountability and EthicsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207