MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809432046 · doi:10.1177/1468794118781380

Moving between theory and practice within an Indigenous research paradigm

2018· article· en· W2809432046 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousParadigm shiftEmbodied cognitionSociologyReciprocalEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a paradigm shift amongst Indigenous peoples and researchers about how research with Indigenous peoples is conceived, implemented, and articulated. The result has been referred to as the Indigenous research paradigm (Wilson, 2003) and has taken the shape of Indigenous research methodologies and processes. The purpose of this article is to discuss the tenets of the Indigenous research paradigm in relation to its practical application within two research projects conducted in higher education settings in British Columbia, Canada. In sharing how these principles are lived during the research process, it discusses how each project embodied Indigenous research processes by being respectful, relevant, responsible, and reciprocal.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.198
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1980.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.307 · 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