Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working in Indigenous communities evokes thoughts about appropriate research methodologies. The default to academic methodologies raises questions about what Indigenous research methodologies might look like. Although there is growing discourse on this subject, I often wonder why Indigenous methodologies still tend to follow Western academic approaches. In this paper, I explore possibilities for alternative ways of understanding Indigenous research methodologies that are aligned with Indigenous practices. I argue that when research is conducted according to the ways and worldview of a particular Indigenous group, the researcher will find themselves practising the laws of that society, as many legal principles are exhibited through the manner in which a person walks in the world. Legal research specifically invites and encourages researchers to work in accordance with the very principles being learned. A methodology arising from a particular worldview and the legal order that it entails will promote practices long entrenched in its communities. Walking in such a manner allows a person to break free from traditional Western methodologies and begin to see the world through the cyclical movements of Indigenous knowledge and practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.178 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.126 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".