MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593486785 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2017v42n1a3091

Pushing the Academy: The Need for Decolonizing Research

2017· article· en· W2593486785 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPrivilege (computing)ScholarshipEconomic JusticeSociologyPolitical scienceCommissionSocial researchEnvironmental ethicsSocial justiceMedia studiesLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With renewed interest for research involving Indigenous peoples, nations, and communities following the height of the Idle No More movement and, more recently, the release of the Indian Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report, this research in brief argues that there is a need for researchers to recognize the history of the Western academy’s relationship with Indigenous peoples and its legacy of contributing to colonization. As a result, communication scholarship should seek to embrace and even privilege Indigenous knowledges in research, when appropriate, and accept research goals of Indigenous social justice based on decolonizing methodologies. The collaborative nature of research means that there is ample opportunity to speak up when research fails to include Indigenous ways of knowing.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0120.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.439
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.023 · 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