MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389009671 · doi:10.32388/1m3q39

Review of: "In the Spirit of Dr. Betty Bastien: Conceptualizing Ontological Responsibilities through the lens of Blackfoot Resilience"

2023· peer-review· en· W4389009671 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Danyluk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)SociologyLens (geology)Through-the-lens meteringEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophyEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potential competing interests: No potential competing interests to declare. Lindstrom and Weaselhead (2023) get to the heart of Indigenous methodologies in their reflection on the impact of Betty Bastien's legacy. Acknowledging those who have come before alongside our own potential impact on the generations that will follow, situates the reader in a cycle of relation. They share an Indigenous perspective on transformative learning, recognizing being in relation as key to the transformation. In doing so, the authors offer a fresh approach to transformative learning. In sharing a Blackfoot perspective, the reader is reminded how learning and research necessitate responsibilities to others as a form of resisitance.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.025

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→