MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221095090 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2022.2054457

Christian summer camps for Indigenous youth in Canada: a settler colonial analysis

2022· article· en· W4221095090 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hope Rumford-Rodgers, Audrey R. Giles, Willow Scobie

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousColonialismContext (archaeology)CommissionAction (physics)Residential schoolAction researchSociologyMetisWork (physics)Political scienceMedia studiesLawCriminologyHistoryArchaeologySocioeconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Final Report and Calls to Action highlighted the need for the truth about Indian residential schools to be known and the responsibility of churches and religious groups to take action to enact reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Summer camps for Indigenous youth run by Christian organizations in Canada are sites that have not yet been given scholarly attention. Within this context, ‘What is happening in these spaces’ is a simple question, but one behind which is the heavy weight of residential school history and the TRC’s Calls to Action. In this paper, we share the results of our research, which was informed by a settler colonial studies lens, and internet-mediated document analysis of camp websites, as well as questionnaires and semi-structured interviews completed with those who operate and work at these camps. Our research addresses an important, but neglected, area of study and makes a timely and applied contribution to leisure studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0220.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207