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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".