MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510498091 · doi:10.1558/jbasr.32478

Production of Sacred Space in the Mi’kmaq Powwow

2010· article· en· W2510498091 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzanne Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the British Association for the Study of Religion (JBASR) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Production (economics)GeographyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The struggle of Newfoundland’s Mi’kmaq for recognition as First Nations has raised questions within their communities about what it means to be Mi’kmaq and how they differ from others. The Conne River Mi’kmaq powwow began in 1996 as a venue for expressing their indigenous identity to outsiders, but also as a means of sharing ceremonies and instilling certain values within the community. Powwows have strict rules and boundaries based on the conceived ‘sacredness’ of specific areas and the powwow ground as a whole. How is ‘sacredness’ defined in these spaces and what values are being reinforced? In what ways are these boundaries maintained and transgressions discouraged? This paper will analyse the Conne River powwow as a ‘re/produced’ space for performing indigeneity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the British Association for the Study of Religion (JBASR)Same topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207