On Evaluating Ethnographic Representations: The Case of the Okanagan of South Central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of ethnographers over the past century have written about the traditional social organization of the Okanagan of south central British Columbia. This article compares the ac counts of four of these, one by James A. Teit, one by L.V.W. Walters, one by Verne Ray, and another by Peter Carstens. While the first three share much in common, the one by Carstens is strikingly different. The former, for example, depict a communitarian social structure with an emphasis on equality for everyone. Peter Carstens, on the other hand, de scribes it as a stratified society (comprised of chiefs, headmen, commoners, and slaves) with a strong emphasis on rank and prestige. The objective of the article is to show how ethnography is affected by personal bias and ideology, particularly when attempting to understand otherness. At a time in history when white representations are called into question by Native peoples themselves, and when they are being used against living peoples injudicial and other highly charged settings, this examination allows us to appreciate the strengths and the limits, the volatility of the ethnographic process itself.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".