MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082942862 · doi:10.1386/jem_00013_1

Reimagining Attawapiskat: Indigenous youth voices, community engagement and mixed-media storytelling

2020· article· en· W3082942862 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Wiebe, Erynne M. Gilpin, Laurence Butet-Roch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Media · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingIndigenousMainstreamSociologyContext (archaeology)Media studiesNarrativeDigital storytellingPublic relationsCommunity engagementGender studiesPolitical scienceHistoryArtPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Widely circulating textual and visual discourses that represent communities shape public perception and awareness. This article discusses a research collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers and artists to reflect on co-creating the Reimagining Attawapiskat project with youth artists. Attawapiskat is an Indigenous community that became the focus of widespread media attention following several State of Emergency declarations due to factors ranging from inhabitable housing conditions to escalating suicide attempts. Informed by Indigenous storytelling research methods and arts-based community-engaged research, the mixed-media storytelling approach advanced here aims to challenge and interrupt mainstream media narratives that frame Attawapiskat as a troubled community constantly in crisis. This collaboration contends with the shadows of Canada’s settler-colonial context through community stories that counter hegemonic portrayals. Reimagining Attawapiskat sheds light on the nuances of community health in Attawapiskat through a collection of youth voices and place-based digital stories that centre Cree life, well-being and culture.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.017
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.492
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.007 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental MediaSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207