Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the still-lingering negative image of Aboriginal traditions, the fact is that significant advances have been made in Canada to lift the discussion to another level and to place Aboriginal spiritual perceptions and attitudes into dialogue with Canadian intellectual life. This movement is in tandem with a general sense of renewal and engagement within the Aboriginal community itself...the community itself in renaissance. We deal here with some recent initiatives in Alberta that demonstrate how Indigenous viewpoints are beginning to be addressed by the academy and wider public. Critical, too is the notion expressed by Aboriginal people that the rise of their traditions is a way of addressing pressing social and medical problems. This analysis focuses on two areas of discussion: Aboriginal law and the incorporation of traditional notions into health sciences and medicine. It specifically reviews the approach by traditionalist Wayne Roan in the Albertasource website, examines the health initiatives of the Centre for the Cross-Cultural Study of Health and Healing and initiatives undertaken by Sundance chief and healer, Clifford Cardinal in the curriculum in the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Alberta. It also calls attention to the University of Calgary’s important initiative under the guidance of Peigan physician Dr. Lindsey Crowshoe. The renaissance continues with some of the advances made when traditional healers from across Canada gathered at the University to discuss the boundaries of sharing traditional knowledge with medical institutions. These elements can only be perceived as symbolic of a significantly wider movement.
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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".