MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2840853647 · doi:10.1111/aeq.12249

Reciprocity in Indigenous Educational Research: Beyond Compensation, Towards Decolonizing

2018· article· en· W2840853647 on OpenAlexaff
Heather E. McGregor, Michael Märker

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropology & Education Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)ConceptualizationIndigenousSociologyReciprocalQualitative researchEpistemologySocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With questions about what it means to conduct educational research in Indigenous contexts based on reciprocal relationships, we review key contributions to the literature from Indigenous and qualitative methodologists. We identify four dimensions of reciprocity, extending the notion of reciprocity as transaction or compensation. To design research that fulfills decolonizing commitments, we find resonance with the conceptualization of reciprocity as a “stance” (Trainor and Bouchard ), rather than being achieved through any particular method.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropology & Education QuarterlySame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207