MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281617854 · doi:10.54337/ojs.bess.v4i1.7294

Another way: The intersection between First Nations peoples' ways of thinking and governance, accounting and accountability

2022· article· en· W4281617854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Guthrie, John Dumay, Alessandro Pelizzon, Ann Martin‐Sardesai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioural Economics and Social Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityIndigenousCorporate governanceAsset (computer security)PublicityPolitical scienceIntersection (aeronautics)SociologyPublic administrationManagementGeographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First Nations peoples' idea of Land custodianship implies that Land cannot be offered, taken, sold, lost or abandoned. This concept does not align with the Anglo-Saxon view of land as an asset which can be owned, sold or transferred between people. A team of researchers from Macquarie University, Southern Cross University and CQ University explore the differences between Indigenous and Western thinking and reflect on future opportunities for research, reconciliation and change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavioural Economics and Social SystemsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207