À quoi ressemble la démocratie participative autochtone ? L’exemple du processus décisionnel communautaire de Kahnawà:ke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avec le mandat communautaire de 1979 visant la transition vers un gouvernement traditionnel, la communauté de Kahnawà:ke a constamment demandé une plus grande implication dans la prise de décision sur les questions qui affectent la communauté dans son ensemble. Le processus décisionnel communautaire de Kahnawà:ke (Kahnawà:ke Community Decision Making Process) est une réponse aux demandes de la communauté, qui souhaitait un processus plus pertinent et inclusif sur le plan culturel pour prendre des décisions communautaires et adopter des lois communautaires. Ce processus est une mesure de transition visant à aider et faciliter le fonctionnement législatif de la gouvernance de Kahnawà:ke. Dans cet article, l’auteure examine l’élaboration de ce processus et son fonctionnement dans le cadre moderne de Kahnawà:ke dans le but d’illustrer la démocratie participative autochtone en action 1 .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".