MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4243357022 · doi:10.1017/ccol0521814413.002

Aboriginal writing

2004· book-chapter· en· W4243357022 on OpenAlexaffabout
Penny van Toorn

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transformations of oral traditions In September 1838, Peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby), an ordained Ojibway Methodist minister, presented a petition to Queen Victoria from chiefs of the Mississauga Ojibway community at Credit River, where he had lived with his mother for the first fourteen years of his life. The petition asked that the Credit River community be granted the title deeds that would ensure their lands could never be taken away. Kahkewaquonaby had written the chiefs' message in the roman alphabet, and they had signed it pictographically with their clan emblems. Attached to the document were some strings of wampum that Kahkewaquonaby read for the queen, as well as delivering his own oral supplication in support of the chiefs' request. Consisting of three forms of writing, and two kinds of oral utterance, the petition was a multimedia event, not merely a written text that could be trusted to speak for itself. Kahkewaquonaby's bodily presence, dressed in buckskin and moccasins, was necessary to authenticate and authorize the petition, to witness that it had been received, and to guide the queen's interpretation of the document in a manner most likely to ensure a favorable outcome for the Credit River Ojibway community.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.009

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→