MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214568881 · doi:10.1080/17432200.2021.2015923

Pilgrimage as Peoplehood: Indigenous Relations and Self-Determination at Places of Catholic Pilgrimage in Mi’kma’ki and the Métis Homeland

2022· article· en· W4214568881 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul L. Gareau, Jeanine LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterial Religion · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPilgrimageHomelandColonialismSociologyGender studiesAnthropologyEthnologyHistoryPolitical sciencePoliticsArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Movement across traditional territory to sacred places has always been central to Indigenous thought, action, and governance. And these places are co-constituted by relations with the Land and Waters, with kin, and with other collective peoples, human and more-than-human. This article examines Indigenous experiences of religion and mobility with regards to places of Catholic pilgrimage in Mi’kma’ki territory and the Métis Homeland. We problematize White possessiveness and the settler colonial project by showing how ideas of religion and sedentism serve as a racializing force in governing Indigenous territories and bodies. We focus instead on Indigenous experiences and understandings of religion and mobility as relational, where (1) movement is about experiencing different relations within storied spaces and places that help familiarize and constitute traditional territory and homelands, and (2) place/places allow for nationhood and peoplehood relations to flourish. This article affirms the self-determination of Indigenous pilgrimage as engendering peoplehood relations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterial ReligionSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207