MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Bi-Epistemic Community Project: Accounting for Socio-Political Realities

2022· article· en· W4306402948 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lorenzo Cherubini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoliticsEpistemic communityAccountingEpistemologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceBusinessPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will describe the inter-disciplinary and bi-epistemic social science research project that included Indigenous and non-Indigenous community members, leaders, educators, and researchers.In partnership with a Native Friendship Centre in Ontario, Canada, the research project honours an Indigenous knowledge framework.It should be noted that Native Friendship Centres provide various culturally appropriate and respectful services and programs for predominantly urban-based Indigenous youth and community members and supports this research to develop Indigenous peoples' identities as producers of narratives.The paper, therefore, provides the necessary context of the culturally appropriate interviews grounded in Indigenous epistemologies.Moreover, the paper will discuss how the outcomes of the culturally appropriate interviews complement the broader socio-political realities as they relate to education.Specifically, how Indigenous students' epistemologies have historically been unrepresented in public education thereby negatively impacting upon their sense of engagement, and how educators themselves can better relate to Indigenous students' learning needs and preferences.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.117 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207