MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382814614 · doi:10.17645/si.v11i3.6638

Indigenous Community Networking in Hawai’i: The Pu‘uhonua o Waimānalo Community Network

2023· article· en· W4382814614 on OpenAlexafffund
Rob McMahon, Wayne Buente, Heather E. Hudson, Brandon Maka’awa’awa, John Kealoha Garcia, Dennis “Bumpy” Kanahele

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Inclusion · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKillam TrustsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousMindsetSociologyCommunity organizationSituatedInclusion (mineral)Public administrationPolitical sciencePublic relationsLawSocial scienceComputer sciencePoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shaping digital inclusion policy and practice to meet community-defined goals requires more than access to digital devices and connectivity; it must also enable their effective design and use in situated local settings. For the Nation of Hawai’i, a Kānaka Maoli (Hawai’ian) sovereignty organization with a land base in Pu‘uhonua o Waimānalo on the island of Oahu, these activities are closely associated with broader goals of Nation-building and sovereignty. Recognizing there are many different approaches to sovereignty among diverse Kānaka Maoli, in this paper we document how the Nation of Hawai’i is conceptualizing the ongoing evolution of their community networking project. We suggest that the Pu‘uhonua o Waimānalo initiative reflects one Indigenous organization’s efforts to frame community networks as a means to generate a “sovereignty mindset” among members of the Nation, as well as share resources and experience among local community members and with other communities in Hawai’i and beyond.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial InclusionSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207