MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Indigenous Storytelling in the Contemporary World: An Interview with Drew Hayden Taylor

2018· article· en· W2903588170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rubelise da Cunha

Bibliographic record

VenueInterfaces Brasil/Canadá · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousStorytellingFilm directorResistance (ecology)HistoryIdentity (music)NarrativeSociologyMedia studiesArt historyLiteratureArtAestheticsMovie theater

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous writers celebrate the resistance and survival of traditional storytelling in contemporary literature, and Ojibway writer Drew Hayden Taylor has done his part in Canada. He is an award-winning playwright who has spread the knowledge of Ojibway storytelling he gained growing up on the Curve Lake First Nation, located in Peterborough (Ontario), where he still has a home and kindly received me there. Taylor has published thirty books which include plays, novels and short stories, and is also well-known as a journalist and filmmaker, with documentaries such as Red Skins, Tricksters and Puppy Stew (2000) on Native humor, and Searching for Winnetou (2018), which opened the Asinabka Festival in Ottawa this year. One of the themes that Drew Hayden Taylor explores in his writings is identity. In a very humorous way, he uses his experience of growing up in an Indigenous community as a blond and blue-eyed Ojibway to question stereotypes associated with Indigenous people. The experience of moving from Curve Lake to the city of Toronto also gave him a critical perspective about stereotypes associated with Indigenous people and the complexities of Indigenous experience on the reserve and in city life, as we observe in his book Funny, You Don’t Look Like One: Observations of a Blue-Eyed Ojibway (1996).

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)0.011
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0340.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterfaces Brasil/CanadáSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207