Working Together with South Saami Birth Stories – A Collaboration Between a Saami Midwife and a Saami Researcher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents some results from a community-based project among local South Saami in the Norwegian and Swedish part of Saepmie. I was co-coordinating a two-year community-sponsored project in the community (Røyrvik) in which a local South Saami midwife documented stories from elder Saami about childbirth in earlier times, both from their own memories and from stories they knew. Her work became an article in a book, and the project helped us to understand much more about childbirth and general living conditions for Saami one to three generations ago in this area. As a PhD candidate, I have complemented her work with a theoretical framework (Indigenous Research Methods, colonial perspective), a historical analysis, and a contemporary context. Apart from presenting an example of stories she was given and how they can give us new knowledge. But I will focus on the meanings, processes, theories and practices of engaged Indigenous community research. I will describe our different methods and the benefit of working together and will point out how it will further research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.763 | 0.536 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.846 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.634 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".