MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Searching for Métis Research Methodologies

2023· article· en· W4387345023 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robline Davey

Bibliographic record

VenuePawaatamihk A Journal of Métis Thinkers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousScholarshipPrivilege (computing)Action researchProcess (computing)CommissionSociologyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Métis research methodologies have not always been valued. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) outlined 94 Calls to Action to privilege Indigenous perspectives, and likely provided the impetus for a shift in which scholarship seeking to reclaim, define, explore, validate, and amplify Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRM) exists. Articulating Métis specific methodologies is congruent with the common research process of aligning all aspects of the research process. Because limited research with Métis women is documented, it is an area for contribution. This paper aims to explore documented Métis methodologies and contribute a Métis arts-based methodology for an upcoming doctoral research project.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePawaatamihk A Journal of Métis ThinkersSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207