Moving forward with Sámi research ethics how the dialogical process to policy development in Canada supports the course of action for the Nordic countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous critiques of academic knowledge production emerged around the same timeframe in Canada and the Nordic countries, however, the discourse has led to different outcomes in each country. This paper addresses Indigenous research ethics as a form of self-determination; and, reflects the development and implementation of ethical guidelines and policy for Indigenous research in Canada comparing it to the situation in the Nordic countries. Across Canada there were a series of parallel, multi-level processes involving numerous actors: Indigenous organizations and political organizations, communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous research Institutions, national research agencies, national research ethics committees, and the creating of an Aboriginal Ethics Working Group to advise on the process. Through a coordinated and consultative practice these numerous actors developed the main contents and enhanced commitment to the implementation of ethical guidelines and policy. Concerning the Nordic countries, while multiple activities have occurred to move this project forward, collaboration between the academic and political spheres on ethical issues occurs less frequently, and Sámi community level involvement has been absent in the interactive dialogue. What appears to be missing in today’s situation is a tangible collaborative agent or platform that would have the authority and capacities to take over the responsibility for coordinating the fragmented and nationally divergent efforts and to promote the political negotiation process both on the Nordic and on the national levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".