MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201160410 · doi:10.1525/irqr.2008.1.1.33

Revisiting Mianscum's ‘telling what you know’ in Indigenous Qualitative Research

2008· article· en· W2201160410 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Darius Stonebanks, Kathleen Wootton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Qualitative Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsOkanagan CollegeBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousContemplationContext (archaeology)HonestyTruth tellingDeliberationSociologyInclusion (mineral)Qualitative researchEnvironmental ethicsPsychologyHistoryLawSocial psychologyEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophySocial sciencePsychoanalysisArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his 1972 court appearance, (James Bay Cree vs. James Bay Energy Corporation), François Mianscum was asked to swear on the Bible to “tell the truth”. The Cree hunter had been summoned to account for his “way of life” and speak about the impact of massive development on his traditional hunting ground by the construction of hydroelectric dams. After contemplation and deliberation of a seemingly routine court request his translator responded, “He does not know whether he can tell the truth. He can only tell what he knows.” (Richardson, 1975, P. 46) Cited widely through Clifford's (1986) inclusion of “the story” for its importance, how can his words guide researchers' approach to “honesty” in qualitative inquiry? This paper turns to the significant members of Mianscum's life to ask how they interpret his statement and what messages can be gained from it while carrying out research in both the indigenous and non-indigenous context.

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)0.305
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.210
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3050.210
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0460.122
Scholarly communication0.0200.024
Open science0.0060.023
Research integrity0.0100.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.778
GPT teacher head0.755
Teacher spread0.023 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Qualitative ResearchSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207