MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512070530 · doi:10.1177/0008429816657248

The Foundations of Aboriginal Spirituality and Healing from the Perspective of Rogier Vandersteene

2016· article· en· W2512070530 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Earle H. Waugh

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityPerspective (graphical)CommissionEnvironmental ethicsAestheticsSpiritual developmentHistorySociologyLawPolitical scienceArtPhilosophyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the light of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), and the often troubling rush to judgment towards the missionaries by many today, it is well to pause and consider those individuals, flawed as they were, who saw deeper truths in Aboriginal culture than was acknowledged in their day. Consider one known as “Steentje, Little Stone,” in Belgium, and eventually as “Ka Miyohtwat – the good man” among his parishioners. Few Canadian missionaries have had the kind of impact that Roger Vandersteene had upon the Cree of Northern Alberta: he was accorded an extraordinary place in the religious terrain at a time when antagonism towards the role of the Church in residential schools was beginning to swell. This article summarizes some of the key points of his achievement, focusing purposely on his perceptions of his mission and the ramifications for understanding traditional Aboriginal spiritual values. He saw these values expressed most effectively in the close relationship between the spiritual world and the potential for wellness and healing.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.039
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207