MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796825771 · doi:10.1093/ohr/ohx073

Blurred Boundaries, Feminisms, and Indigenisms: Cocreating an Indigenous Oral History for Decolonization

2017· article· en· W2796825771 on OpenAlexaff
Ioana Radu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oral History Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicOral History, Memory, Narrative Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForegroundingDecolonizationIndigenousAutonomyColonialismSociologyGender studiesOral historyTraditional knowledgeAnthropologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is about Indigenous oral histories and Indigenous feminisms as understood by a settler. It builds from critiques that urge gender and women’s studies to break out of the focus on parity and consider intersecting issues of settler colonialism and the decolonizing work necessary for achieving autonomy locally. I draw from my research collaboration with the Cree Nation of Chisasibi that traces the community’s process of developing a culturally safe model of care to explore epistemological and methodological practices codeveloped with my research partners. I then explore the ways in which these practices can inform the field of feminist oral history by insisting on foregrounding place-based culturally informed priorities.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.026
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Oral History ReviewSame topicOral History, Memory, Narrative AnalysisFrench-language works237,207