MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167902252 · doi:10.1108/jgr-09-2020-0088

Can a formalised model of co-production contribute to empowering indigenous communities in decisions about land use?

2021· article· en· W3167902252 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Responsibility · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoproductionLegislationContext (archaeology)IndigenousPublic relationsMental healthBusinessProduction (economics)Citizen journalismCultural heritageEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceKnowledge managementMedicineComputer scienceEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Co-production has been used in public services in the UK areas such as mental health to improve the participation of service users in decisions made about the services traditionally provided for them and done to them. It has also been used in areas such as mental health and to address concerns about the quality of services provided to members of minority communities. Western Australia is currently passing legislation to address the issue of aboriginal cultural heritage management in the context of recent adverse incidents such as the incident where Rio Tinto was responsible for the destruction of the site. This paper aims to show how a formalised model of co-production can assist in the implementation of this legislation. Design/methodology/approach This paper considers how effective co-production has been within the domain of mental health services in the UK and then considers whether they are lessons that may be learnt in other contexts. It considers whether concepts from co-production have a role to play in ensuring that the legislation and its implementation are not seen as actions done to or on behalf of the aboriginal communities and if a more structured approach to coproduction can produce a model, which facilitates genuinely collaborative aboriginal heritage management. Findings The approach has facilitated the development of a model to monitor and improve collaboration within aboriginal cultural heritage management, which complements existing participatory approaches and enables businesses to demonstrate their legislatory compliance. Social implications The study offers an approach, which may be used globally to empower indigenous communities in decision-making in other contexts, such as deforestation in South America and oil and gas exploitation on Inuit and First Nations land in Canada. Originality/value The use of co-production concepts and capability modelling is novel in this space.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.262 · 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