MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004797468 · doi:10.1177/1177180120903499

Métis women gathering: visiting together and voicing wellness for ourselves

2020· article· en· W3004797468 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anna Corrigal Flaminio, Janice Cindy Gaudet, Leah Marie Dorion

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College Saint-JeanNorthern Teacher Education ProgramUniversity of AlbertaToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchArboraNano
KeywordsPrideCeremonyKinshipFocus groupIdentity (music)Participant observationSociologyGender studiesPublic relationsGeographyPolitical scienceSocial scienceAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the limited research by Métis women, and with Métis women, this article focuses on the impact of Métis women gathering for the purpose of sharing Métis women’s knowledge. The aim of our research is to learn Métis women’s perspectives, specifically the ways in which gathering and visiting together affects our wellness. The geographical focus was specific to kinship systems along the South Saskatchewan river, near St. Louis, Saskatchewan. This land/river place was chosen given our shared family connections to this area. We applied Métis-specific research methodologies, epistemologies, and pedagogies, including the importance of gathering with Métis women in our homes and on our land. Our community-engaged and visiting methodology included mixed-methods, such as participant engagement, evaluation forms, ceremony, gatherings, semi-structured interviews, and learning-by-doing. The research demonstrates that through Métis women visiting, gathering, and sharing Métis women’s cultural and spiritual knowledge, Métis women experienced a greater sense of wellness. The findings focus on key themes, including (a) Importance of Métis women gathering together; (b) Visiting is changing; (c) Learning-by-doing and kinship; (d) Métis women’s gatherings, community, and wellness; (e) Métis-specific spaces to share stories; and (f) Pride in Métis women’s identity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207