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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.326
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3260.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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