Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinship studies are the hallmark of anthropological research into Native American societies, while genealogical reconstruction is common in historical studies of the Metis. The study of kinship has a twofold outcome. It reveals the worldview of various indigenous societies as evidenced by their construction of family and other relationships. But it also serves as a means to document their differences, culturally and socially, from mainstream North American society. Genealogical research, conversely, reveals little about the mentalité of the Metis because its purpose is simply to establish a documentary link between living and historical generations. The primary records sought in such work are then used to reconstitute the lives of particular individuals within the family but are not used to evaluate the connection those individuals had to the establishment of communities or their role within a societal framework defined by a worldview. By merging kinship and genealogical methods, the research presented here reconstructs Metis genealogies in northwestern Saskatchewan, not to trace any one individual but rather to analyze the emergence of a community over time through family interconnections, and it seeks to articulate the worldview of the people as expressed through cultural norms and practices. By bridging the methodological approaches and sources, we can produce a transformative approach to studying the Metis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".