MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W283998042

The Nature of Knowledge: Calibrating Discourses across Cultures and Finding Common Disciplinary Ground

2012· article· en· W283998042 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Régna Darnell

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Cultural and Social Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)NarrativeCommon groundSociologyDisciplineEpistemologyReflexivityMainstreamPoliticsAestheticsSocial scienceLinguisticsPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay approaches the relationship that J. Edward Chamberlin posits between stories and land from the standpoint of First Nations narrative and reflects on the process by which outsiders may come to understand how Native storytellers construct meaning and reflect on their present-day social and political circumstances. Such storytellers often employ traditional stories to establish cultural continuity and provide templates for contemporary reflexivity. Examples are drawn from more than four decades of fieldwork as a linguistic anthropologist, primarily among Plains Cree and Anishinaabeg (Ojibwe) peoples. Some proposals are made for establishing respectful relationships and transcending cross-cultural mis-communication. The essay both articulates and employs First Nations pedagogical principles drawn from oral tradition. It attempts to establish effective conversations across traditional academic disciplines of the humanities and social sciences as well as between Native and non-Native discourses. Because cross-cultural differences in meaning-making are deeply grounded in social practice as well as language in the narrow sense, careful attention to the underlying relational quality of philosophical thought in specific Native traditions is required to calibrate narrative practices and the appropriate forms of interaction entailed by them. The stories themselves are the tip of a complex iceberg and effective storytellers invite hearers or readers to interpret their words in terms of rich social and aesthetic conventions that differ greatly from those of mainstream Canadian society. “Common ground” is about traditional land in a literal sense but it is also about the potential for discursive common ground. Abstract: Le present article discute des liens qui sont percus par J. Edward Chamberlin entre les histoires et leur provenance dans les recits des Premieres Nations. Il examine le processus qui pourrait aider les etrangers a mieux comprendre comment les raconteurs autochtones donnent un sens et reflechissent a leurs circonstances sociales et politiques actuelles. De tels raconteurs se servent souvent d’histoires traditionnelles pour etablir une continuite culturelle et fournir des modeles pour la reflexivite contemporaine. Des exemples sont tires de plus de quatre decennies de recherches pratiques en anthropologie linguistique, specialement avec les Crisdes-Plaines et les Anishinaabeg (Ojibwas). Certaines propositions sont faites pour etablir des relations respectueuses et passer outre aux malentendus culturels. Cet article exprime clairement et utilise des principes pedagogiques des Premieres Nations tires de la tradition orale. Il essaie d’etablir une conversation efficace au sein de plusieurs disciplines universitaires traditionnelles des sciences humaines et des sciences sociales, ainsi qu’entre les discours autochtones et non autochtones. Etant donne que les differences entre les cultures concernant la reflexion sur le sens de la vie sont ancrees profondement dans la pratique sociale ainsi que dans la langue dans son sens etroit, il faut faire tres attention a la qualite relationnelle sous-jacente de la pensee philosophique dans des traditions autochtones particulieres pour calibrer les pratiques narratives et les formes appropriees d’interaction qu’elles provoquent. Les histoires memes sont la partie emergee d’un iceberg tres complexe et les bons raconteurs invitent ceux qui ecoutent ou lisent leurs histoires a interpreter leurs mots en termes de riches conventions sociales et esthetiques qui different enormement de celles du reste de la societe canadienne. Le terrain commun porte sur les terres traditionnelles dans son sens litteral, mais il vise aussi la possibilite d’un terrain commun discursif.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.009
Science and technology studies0.0160.101
Scholarly communication0.0330.060
Open science0.0040.029
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicCross-Cultural and Social AnalysisFrench-language works237,207