MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518207145 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2016.7.3.3

Indigenous Adoption of Internet Voting: A Case Study of Whitefish River First Nation

2016· article· en· W2518207145 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Chelsea Gabel, Nicole Goodman, Karen Bird, Brian Budd

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsVotingIndigenousThe InternetPoliticsPublic relationsBusinessPublic administrationAdministration (probate law)Political scienceInternet privacyLawComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous communities and organizations are increasingly using digital technologies to build community capacity, strengthen community consultation, and improve political participation. In particular, Internet voting is a type of technology to which First Nations have been drawn. This article explores Whitefish River First Nation's (WRFN) experience introducing Internet voting in the course of ratifying a new matrimonial real property law (MRP). Specifically, we examine the implications of Internet voting for political participation and electoral administration at the community level. Although community members’ uptake of Internet voting was very modest, we find the experience of adoption had other subtle impacts on community capacity, specifically in terms of empowering the community to pass its own laws and connecting youth and elders. With respect to administration, Internet voting provided an opportunity to connect with community members using technology, to modernize voting processes, and to better accommodate community members needs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.332 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207