MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283271660 · doi:10.37119/ojs2022.v27i2b.615

Miskasowin askîhk: Coming to Know Oneself on the Land

2022· article· en· W4283271660 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tammy Ratt

Bibliographic record

Venuein education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPhraseIndigenous languageIdentity (music)Plain languageProcess (computing)Traditional knowledgeSociologyLinguisticsPedagogyPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceAestheticsLawArtificial intelligenceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

miskâsowin askîhk is a nêhiyawêwin word that translates roughly “as finding oneself on the land.” Throughout this paper, I aim to tell a story about the journey I have taken on the land, with the language. The paper also addresses a process of coming to find myself throughout these experiences and relationships with land and language. Through my stories on the land, I have learned that I belong to the land and that the land teaches me. The article also shares what I have learned from Elders, Knowledge Keepers and literature. Namely, learning language on the land, with the land's resources, is an effective way to revitalize language and reclaim Indigenous identity in a balanced way. I finish this paper with the description of a project that I would like to research further. The project involves hand making beaded leather mitts while learning to speak nêhiyawêwin. This project is connected to asōnamēkēwin, a word in nêhiyawêwin that means that it is our responsibility to pass on knowledge that we learn. This is another important nêhiyawêwin phrase that guides me on this journey. It is my responsibility and I pass this responsibility onto anybody that I teach, to teach what they learn. Keywords: land-based learning, Cree language learning, language revitalization, best practices

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.351 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuein educationSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207