MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320717173 · doi:10.3138/topia-2022-0011

Looking Back in <i>Kewekapawetan: Return After the Flood</i>. Research, Remembrance and Reclamation of a Hydro Story

2023· article· en· W4320717173 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Isabella Huberman

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingFlood mythIndigenousNarrativeFilm directorLand reclamationOral historyDocumentary filmHistorySociologyArchaeologyGeographyArtArt historyLiteratureMovie theaterEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay analyses Jennifer Dysart’s 2014 documentary film Kewekapawetan: Return After the Flood, which tells the past and present-day story of the Northern Manitoba Ithinew (Cree) community South Indian Lake and its entanglement with Manitoba Hydro. Dysart documents the history of colonial hydro policy by showcasing rare archival footage from the late 1960s and reclaims this material for the community she has roots in. At the same time, she records her search to learn about her father’s life and her efforts to reconnect with family by spending time on the land. Discussion between author and filmmaker throughout the research and writing process engages “visiting” as a methodology for studying Indigenous narrative arts. Ultimately, Dysart’s visual storytelling is a critical site of knowledge-making about the dislocation caused by large-scale resource extraction that foregrounds reconnection to family, community and land.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207