MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399027218 · doi:10.29173/jaed7

The Artist’s Statement—Economic Reconciliation

2024· article· en· W4399027218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Brittain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aboriginal Economic Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)ArtPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The outline of the tipi symbolizes community connectedness and a place of warmth, security, wellness, and sacred tradition and value. Inside the tipi, two individual vines intertwine: one representing corporate Canada and the government, and the other representing Indigenous peoples. The intertwining vines embody reconciliation between these two groups through acceptance, balance, understanding, and engagement. Both vines show a similar level of support, highlighting that Indigenous peoples are equally capable, powerful, knowledgeable, and hard-working as mainstream society. Together, through reconciliation, we can contribute greatly to the Canadian economy through our history, land, and resources. That’s why I chose to have the intertwined vines holding up the Earth (economy). The “Turtle Island” landmass on the Earth acknowledges the land of Indigenous peoples, affirming our equal right to be involved in shaping the economy. With a call to action, we can make it happen and increase opportunities for ourselves in the process. The image represents the vision of economic reconciliation, with the value of this vision held within the tipi. Through the intertwined vines and acknowledgment of Turtle Island, the image conveys the message that Indigenous peoples have an equal right to shape the Canadian economy. By taking action, we can make this vision a reality and increase opportunities for ourselves.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience 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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aboriginal Economic DevelopmentSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207