MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727674901 · doi:10.1558/jsrnc.27263

Indigenous Knowledge and Contested Spirituality in Canadian Nuclear Waste Management

2017· article· en· W2727674901 on OpenAlexaffabout
Meaghan Weatherdon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Religion Nature and Culture · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGrassrootsSpiritualityEnvironmental ethicsCONTESTHegemonyPoliticsSociologyGovernment (linguistics)ColonialismState (computer science)Political scienceLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous spirituality is often deployed in grassroots environmental movements as a strategy to revitalize cultures and contest a hegemonic worldview that continues to marginalize Indigenous Peoples. From this perspective, Indigenous spirituality serves as an epistemological foil that these social movements utilize to critique prevailing capitalist values, environmental degradation, and neo-colonialism. Indigenous spiritual knowledge is also being employed by government and industry as a strategy to enhance the prolle of their own political and commercial agendas. Indigenous spirituality has therefore come to signify a wide variety of meanings and concerns in environmental management and public discourse. This can be illustrated by considering how Indigenous spirituality has become a site of contestation between the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the public body responsible for managing Canada’s used nuclear fuel, and the Committee for Future Generations (CFFG), a grass roots anti-nuclear organization, regarding the proposal to store nuclear waste in Northern Saskatchewan.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of Religion Nature and CultureSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207