MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268901925 · doi:10.1177/1532708615625690

Ghosts and Their Analysts

2016· article· en· W2268901925 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kara Granzow, Amber Dean

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Studies &#x2194 Critical Methodologies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsIndigenousNothingReading (process)HistorySociologyEconomic JusticeGender studiesLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We arrived late. We were doctoral students who took up as our study the “public secret” (Taussig, 1999, pg. 2) behind the contemporary disappearance of Indigenous women from the midst of the Western Canadian cities in which they, and we, were living. Suzanne Vail was there before we were, having arrived in 1987. She is the protagonist of Katherine Govier’s novel Between Men, a young historian obsessively studying the 1889 murder of a young Cree woman named Rosalie in Calgary, Alberta. Reading Between Men in 2010, we found ourselves anticipated in form and obsession. That Suzanne Vail is a fiction and we are nonfiction does nothing to quiet this shock; rather, it prompts us to engage (with) her as we think through crises of ontology and epistemology in relation to what haunts contemporary efforts to frame historical remembrance of “settling” the Canadian West as a time of conquest (over land and people) and nation-building, a time of progress and development. In this article, we argue that Suzanne’s obsession with Rosalie in Between Men can help us understand just how we, as scholars, are implicated in these contests over history, and explore why this might matter as we struggle toward something that might resemble justice for murdered or missing Indigenous women in the present.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.087
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Studies &#x2194 Critical MethodologiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207