A call for respect and equality for indigenous scholarship in Hawaiian health.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the State of Hawai'i, there has been steady interest on the part of Western scholarly communities in studies of indigenous Hawaiian intellectual properties. There exists an academic desire to appropriate new fields of knowledge from Hawaiian sources. This pursuit of knowledge runs the risk of increasing the sense of cultural violation already felt by many indigenous populations. If conducted using the means of colonialist intellectualism common to the academy of the dominant culture, this quest for new information will likely contribute to a legacy of spiritual and cultural violation felt by the Hawaiian people. This effort will then likely lead to a further decline in feelings of cultural integrity on the part of native populations. This endeavor will then increase the basis for the psycho-spiritual malaise that underpins the negative health statistics evidenced in Native Hawaiian populations. If present day researchers are to gain greater insight into the lexicon of knowledge available from Native Hawaiians, they will have to employ methods that provide for indigenous scholars to serve as co-researchers in this quest. If Western scholars are to gain access to Native Hawaiian knowledge, such information will more likely come as a result of healing this social wound by developing a new relationship of respect for Native Hawaiian cosmology, epistemology, and pedagogy--one wherein all parties are accepted as co-equals in the scholarly process.
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 | 0.039 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".