MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915518988 · doi:10.32920/27616584

Equality Delayed is Equality Denied for Indigenous Women

2024· article· fr· W2915518988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sharon Donna McIvor, Pamela Palmater, Shelagh Day

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGender equalityPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyBiology

Abstract

<p>Ce texte se veut une courte histoire du sexisme présent dans la législation canadienne qui touche le peuple autochtone dans la Loi des Indiens. Depuis son élection en 1876, en dépit des nombreux amendements qui ont suivi, les femmes autochtones n’ont jamais été reconnues comme telles. Elles furent traitées comme citoyennes de seconde classe, moins que des parents, encore moins comme Indiennes. Les auteures sont d’avis que cette loi discriminatoire a grandement contribué au sérieux problème des femmes autochtones perdues et assassinées au Canada. Cet article demande au Gouvernement de cesser ses sursis et de finalement agir vers un changement.<br> </p>

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: french · design weight: 1554.47 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Essay on sexism in the Indian Act toward Indigenous women; legal and social history, not research practice.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This discusses sex discrimination in Canadian Indigenous legislation, not research itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: policy
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Commentary on sexism in the Canadian Indian Act and Indigenous women's rights; legal/social policy, not research systems.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207