MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Métis Nation, Epistemic Injustice, and Self-Indigenization

2024· article· en· W4399929778 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul Simard Smith, Kurtis Boyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePawaatamihk A Journal of Métis Thinkers · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenizationInjusticeEpistemologySociologyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical sciencePhilosophySocial psychologyAnthropologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers epistemic dimensions of injustices associated with settlers self-indigenization through false claims to being Métis. First, we provide an analytic characterization of the act of self-indigenization. Afterwards we spell out how confusions surrounding the meaning of the term ‘Métis’ generate lacunae in the social imagination of the dominant society in Canada. These lacunae make it more difficult for Métis people to explain to the dominant society why claims based on self-identification alone are inadequate bases upon which to claim to be Métis. Finally, we highlighting steps taken by the Métis Nation to assert their identity through citizenship registries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePawaatamihk A Journal of Métis ThinkersSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207