MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386021908 · doi:10.14430/arctic77586

Participatory Video: One Contemporary Way for Cree and Inuit Adolescents to Relate to the Land in Nunavik

2023· article· en· W4386021908 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Thora Martina Herrmann, Laine Chanteloup, Fabienne Joliet

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersInstitut Polaire Français Paul Emile VictorCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la RechercheLabex DRIIHM
KeywordsIndigenousCitizen journalismGeographyArcticPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous peoples in Canada’s North, especially youth, are increasingly using creative visual arts, such as film, video, and new media technologies to portray their own realities and their personal view of the surrounding environment, thereby contesting colonial, stereotyped media representations of First Peoples. To analyze the youth geography—a sub-discipline of human geography—of nuna (“land” in Inuktitut) and istchee (“land” in Cree) and to understand the distinctive and contemporary meanings that Inuit and Cree young people give to the land, we carried out participatory video (PV) workshops in three Inuit and one Cree communities in Nunavik in 2016, 2017, and 2019. In this paper, we give an account of the nuna/istchee PV project as a method for engaging with young Indigenous people, as a means to develop an Indigenous youth cultural geography in the Arctic. We discuss the effects of PV on the different actors involved in the research process: young Inuit and Cree participants and their communities, the participating schools, and researchers.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207