MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391091987 · doi:10.60095/pula2793

Confronting Legacies of Indigenous Injustice: Lessons from Sweden

2024· article· en· W4391091987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Ochs

Bibliographic record

VenueSeton Hall Law Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Science and Policy Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUS-UK Fulbright CommissionU.S. Department of State
KeywordsInjusticeIndigenousPolitical scienceSociologyCriminologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past decade has brought global efforts by settler colonial states to provide healing and justice for past and ongoing harms against Indigenous communities. Many of these efforts have manifested in the creation of truth commissions, nonjudicial entities which seek to establish a reliable historical record of harm, promote reconciliation, and foster healing by providing harmed parties the opportunities to share their stories and-in some cases-to confront their perpetrators. To date, these commissions have been established by various settler colonial states, including Canada and Greenland. Most recently, however, Scandinavian countries have turned to truth commissions to provide redress for past harms against their Indigenous peoples. In fact, within the last few years, Norway, Finland, and Sweden have all created independent truth commissions to investigate their nations' respective systemic discrimination against the Sami people and provide forms of healing and pathways to reconciliation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.012
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.363 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeton Hall Law ReviewSame topicSocial Science and Policy ResearchFrench-language works237,207