MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240685620 · doi:10.34074/junc.20043

Pulling Together: Navigating Indigenisation From Within

2019· article· en· W4240685620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Glubke

Bibliographic record

VenueJunctures The Journal for Thematic Dialogue · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenizationIndigenousChristian ministryRedressAction (physics)Political scienceCustodiansSociologyPublic relationsPublic administrationLawHistoryAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, in 2015 the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) brought forward to all Canadians the devastating and lasting effects of residential schools on Indigenous peoples. The TRC published the Calls to Action to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance a process of Canadian reconciliation, which renewed efforts within many sectors. While many post-secondary institutions were already working with Indigenous communities, the TRC’s Calls to Action resulted in project funding from a variety of sources that aimed to address the Calls to Action.From 2016 –18, the BCcampus Indigenization Project formed a collaboration between the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, BCcampus, an Indigenization Project Steering Committee of eight Indigenous educational leaders and thirty Indigenous and ally writers representing fourteen BC post-secondary education institutions to create Indigenization resources. This article highlights the project and how BCcampus approached learning about reconciliation and Indigenization while embarking on the creation of a series of online Indigenization guides for post-secondary institutions.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0730.054
Scholarly communication0.0190.015
Open science0.0050.035
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJunctures The Journal for Thematic DialogueSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207