Reclaiming Métis Identity: Implications for Art Therapy Research and Practice (Réappropriation de l’identité Métis : implications pour la recherche et la pratique en art-thérapie)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a brief historical context of the issue of Métis identity, discussion of a proposed theoretical framework, analysis of recent literature, and a critical review of the role of art therapy when serving and advocating for Métis people. The following questions are a proposal for consideration when working with Métis people, from a feminist and symbolic interactionist (humanist) point of view: (1) Which life experiences, on a family, community, social, and cultural level have influenced and contributed to your identity as a Métis person? (2) How would you share your identity through symbolic and creative expression? and (3) What would have made a difference in claiming your Métis identity in your formative years, presently, and what do you hope for our future generation?
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 | 0.052 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".