“Wisdom Seeking Together”: Circling around Research Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before Indigenous scholars engage in decolonial research with human participants, Canadian universities must grant them ethics approval. Grounded by the experiences of the nehiyaw researcher and the Chair of the research ethics board who reviewed the research, we explore the experience of REB review with research exploring self-determination and sovereignty with nehiyaw iskwewak (Cree females) as Knowledge Holders. In accordance with iyiniwak (Indigenous Peoples) beliefs, the co-creators and authors positioned themselves in the centre of a circle with Natural Law teachings of kindness, honesty, caring, strength, and determination. In this shared space, we brought together dialogues connected to thematics grounded in ceremony, Natural Law (iyiniwak teachings), and cyclical process. Through four directions, we examine colonial processes and identify REB accountabilities.
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 | 0.232 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.138 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".