MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504995956

A PEDAGOGY OF THE LAND: DREAMS OF RESPECTFUL RELATIONS

2002· article· fr· W2504995956 on OpenAlexaff
Kaaren Dannenmann, Celia Haig‐Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyEthnologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT. This article arises out of a partnership between an aboriginal community member and a university faculty member whose relational focus is the development of a pedagogy of the land within the Indigenous Knowledge Instructors Program. (Re)creating traditional knowledge with others in contemporary contexts, as their birthright, is the goal of the program. We struggle to communicate and locate this work within an appropriate 'community.' Dreaming of respectful relations, we are committed to thinking through the complexity of such a quest. UNE PEDAGOGIE DE LA TERRE: REVES DE RELATIONS RESPECTUEUSES RESUME. Cet article est le fruit d'un partenariat etabli entre le membre d'une communaute autochtone et une universitaire dont l'axe relationnel est l'elaboration d'une pedagogie de la terre dans le cadre du Programme de charges de cours sur le savoir autochtone. L'objectif de ce programme est de (re)creer des connaissances traditionnelles avec d'autres dans un contexte contemporain comme leur droit de naissance. Nous nous efforcons de transmettre et de situer ces travaux dans une communaute qui s'y prete. Revant de relations respectueuses, nous avons pris l'engagement de reflechir a la complexite d'une telle quete.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.049
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations39
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGillSame topicIndigenous and Place-Based EducationFrench-language works237,207