MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773926336 · doi:10.22584/nr46.2017.004

Tails on the Trails

2017· article· en· W2773926336 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Leslie McCartney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Northern Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrideMandateVariety (cybernetics)PublicationPlan (archaeology)SociologyPublic relationsMedia studiesHistoryLibrary sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1996, the then Gwich'in Social and Cultural Institute (GSCI) in the Northwest Territories, Canada, published a strategic plan entitled Into the Next Millennium. 1 Th e plan outlined projects the GSCI wished to undertake from 1996 to 2001 that would help achieve their mandate to "document, preserve and promote the practice of Gwich'in culture, language, traditional knowledge and values."One of the identifi ed projects was "Biographies of Prominent Elders." In preparing the strategy, the GSCI Board and Elders in the four Gwich'in communities of Aklavik, Inuvik, Fort McPherson, and Tsiigehtchic had expressed their wish that this project be undertaken.Th e Elders wanted their grandchildren to know their stories so the children would learn about and take pride in their traditional culture.Th e Elders also wanted a larger audience to learn about and from them, and to know their history.Th e goal of the project was to publish the stories, hopefully in a variety of ways such as a large book, a series of children's books based on themes, individual biographies of each Elder, or in journals for broader audiences.Th e GSCI asked

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1440.048

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Northern ReviewSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207