Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to contribute to the emerging context of Indigenous planning, recognizing that it is both a theoretical framework and professional practice of resistance to historical colonial planning and the production of place/space relationships. Specifically my thesis employs an Indigenous research framework, whereby the participants are experts, respect for relationships is foremost and contribution to social change is part of the design (Smith, 1999). Through the use of Photovoice (Castleden & Garvin, 2008 Wang & Burris, 1997) as a participatory research framework of qualitative inquiry, participants examine place/space relationships between Lheidli T'enneh Nation Members and Lheidli (the now City of Prince George) in the specific contexts of (1) the colonial hegemony that has erased Lheidli history and (2) the wider neglect of planning policy in not meaningfully engaging with urban Aboriginal communities. Ultimately my thesis does not transcend Western research methods rather, it creates a political challenge to the Western model of the planning process by acknowledging an Indigenous planning methodology that is accountable to Indigenous communities. --Leaf ii.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".