MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Berdache to Two-Spirit and Beyond

2022· book-chapter· en· W4307697013 on OpenAlexaff
Micha E. Davies-Cole, Margaret Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGender studiesIdentity (music)Inclusion (mineral)SociologySexual differencePolitical sciencePsychologyAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The visible presence and frequent social inclusion of gender minority people in First Nations across the North American continent spurred settler sociologists to describe Indigenous gender difference using the term “berdache.” That term was not embraced by Indigenous Peoples themselves, as frameworks of gender expression, terms used to describe gender difference, and social roles for those so named often differed by First Nation. Forced assimilation practices, such as boarding and residential schools and compulsory conversion to Christianity, attempted to erase Indigenous culture, including distinct gender frameworks. Efforts by First Nations Peoples to preserve Indigenous cultural specificity, including their terms for gender difference, have been undermined by widespread destruction of Indigenous languages. Beginning around the 1960s, some First Nations people began to express their gender or sexual difference by identifying as “Two-Spirit” and formed regional groups to organize socially and politically around that identity. This chapter will examine how contemporary representations of Two-Spirit identity hold continuity and disruption in creative tension.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→