Presenting unity, performing diversity : identity negotiations in Stó:lo territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A partir de l'exemple des Amerindiens Sto:lo de la Vallee Fraser en Colombie Britannique, l'A. examine les contradictions entre l'opportunite politique de presenter une identite collective unifiee dans le cadre de revendications culturelles et territoriales et la necessite de la diversite pour la representation de l'identite dans la vie quotidienne. Mobilisant les registres theoriques de la representation, de la performance et de l'interaction (Goffman, Blumer), il explique pourquoi les differentes expressions de l'identite sto:lo peuvent coexister tout en maintenant une unite par rapport au contexte englobant. Afin d'illustrer son propos, il decrit notamment les modes de presentation de l'identite dans le contexte des programmes educatifs destines a mieux faire connaitre la culture amerindienne aux membres de la societe canadienne englobante ou a l'interieur de la communaute sto:lo
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".