MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294766957 · doi:10.3138/ijcs.52.133

The Incalculable Weight of Small Numbers: Hunters, Land Use, and the Poplar River First Nation Proposal for a World Heritage Site

2015· article· en· W2294766957 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Agnieszka Pawłowska-Mainville, Peter Kulchyski

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Canadian Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousNominationGeographyResource (disambiguation)PopulationFirst nationNatural resourceEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEthnologyHistoryEnvironmental resource managementSociologyLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines Poplar River First Nation's attempt to designate their traditional trapline territory as part of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's world heritage site nomination called Pimachiowin Aki. Along with other neighbouring Anishinaabeg First Nations involved in this First Nation-led project, Poplar River is using the global infrastructure to meet local needs. Their endeavour to establish permanent protection of their lands so that continuity of cultural practices ensues is a reconceptualization of the meaning of development. In spite of its small population, this Indigenous community's attempt to stand up against non-renewable resource exploitation of their lands carries great weight in Manitoba, and already their unique narrative has captured the attention of Canada and the world.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.019
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207