MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315746632 · doi:10.1177/1742715016638913

Exploring traditional Indigenous leadership concepts: A spiritual foundation for Blackfeet leadership

2016· article· en· W2315746632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph Scott Gladstone, Donald D. Pepion

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSociologyShared leadershipFoundation (evidence)Leadership styleTraditional authorityLeadershipSpiritualityLeadership studiesTransactional leadershipPublic relationsAnthropologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically examining the cultural foundation for traditional leadership within the Blackfoot Confederacy, composed of the Blackfeet (Pikuni or South Piegan) in Montana, USA, and the North Piegan, Blood (Kainai), and Blackfoot (Siksika) in Alberta, Canada, reveals that authority for leadership is grounded in tribal spirituality. This spiritual authority is integrated within traditional and complex structures that organize the social structures of the Blackfeet, a structure of extended family, bands, and societies that all influence leadership. Traditional leadership authority arises through medicine bundle rituals, ceremonial rites, and protocols that exist within the Niitsítapi (Blackfeet people) worldview. Understanding the complex foundations of traditional tribal leadership facilitates future research and understanding of Indigenous leadership, especially when international borders separate tribes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.540
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeadershipSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207