MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4280641619 · doi:10.32920/19522141

The First Nations Water Crisis Through an Affective Lens

2022· preprint· en· W4280641619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra Nashed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)Rationalization (economics)Political sciencePower (physics)Through-the-lens meteringColonialismPolitical economySociologyLens (geology)LawEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This sentiment analysis entails the examination of commonly held colonial opinions and attitudes that further stigmatize Indigenous Peoples. The YouTube video posted by Global News (2021) chosen for this sentiment analysis speaks on the water crisis as experienced by Indigenous Peoples in which the insufficiencies of the infrastructures the government supposedly implements to provide clean drinking water for Indigenous communities is brought to light. This paper explores the negative sentiments/stereotypes found within the video to illustrate how Indigenous communities experience the water crisis and how it is viewed through an affective lens by settler colonialists. An exploration of the Canadian government’s tokenistic rationalization of their current policies that supposedly attempt to deal with and eradicate the water crisis will attempt to provide a counternarrative to the negative sentiments/stereotypes. Two policies that will be explored include the Indian Act, which placed a lot of power and control in the hands of the federal government in the allocation of funding and resources to Indigenous communities. And the policies that require Indigenous Peoples to go through various challenging and problematic hurdles to acquire funding for water treatment plants in their communities.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.343 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→