MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2792143947

Aboriginal women and violence, a standpoint analysis

2001· dissertation· en· W2792143947 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lisa Audrey Murdock

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologyPsychologyGender studiesSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to adequately respond to the needs of women who are struggling to cope with their own use of intimate violence, this research project sets out to explore the issue of women's intimate violence. Acknowledging the fact that violence is a significant issue within the Aboriginal community, particular attention has been directed to Aboriginal women who engage in violent behaviour. Taking a standpoint approach to the issue, three focus-group discussions and 12 in-depth interviews were conducted with Aboriginal women in order to get at how these women made sense of their own use of violence. Situated in the context of the long history of racial oppression and discrimination faced by Aboriginal people, the legacy of residential boarding schools is discussed in terms of its effect upon the familial structure within Aboriginal communities. As a result of the government's failed attempt to assimilate Canada's Aboriginal people into the larger society, Aboriginal people, as a group, have been left to live in astate of despair. The women's stories of growing up in broken families are explored in depth, as is their long histories of living in an environment where alcohol, violence and poverty are the norm. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→