MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010664118 · doi:10.1177/1177180119890141

Mixed-blood: Indigenous-Black identity in colonial Canada

2020· article· en· W3010664118 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ann Marie Beals, Ciann Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousColonialismRacismOppressionGender studiesSociologyIdentity (music)White (mutation)StorytellingAnthropologyPolitical sciencePoliticsNarrativeLawEcologyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In thinking through Indigenous-Blackness in colonial Canada, we explored the ramifications of the intersections of mixed-blood Indigenous-Black identity with colonialism, racism, gender, and social determinants of health, and how the outcomes of such intersections manifest as erasure, racism, and fractured identity. This critical research is nested within the larger Proclaiming Our Roots project, which uses an arts-based community-based methodology to respect and represent local and global Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies, and utilizes digital oral storytelling, community mapping, and semi-structured interviews as research methods. Community members gathered in workshops held in Toronto and Halifax/Dartmouth, Canada, as these are sites where Indigenous and Black communities came together in the face of white colonial oppression. Community members and researchers told their stories and reshaped their geographies as acts of resistance. This work brings to the forefront Indigenous-Black identity, and how Indigenous-Black people manoeuvre within Western settler society.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0520.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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