Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, Mtis scholars have called for a more Mtis-centred scholarship.In 2024, we are positioned at Pawaatamihk: Journal for Mtis to encourage and lift up Mtis-centre scholarship.Due to the increase of Mtis thinkers in the academy and in the community, we see an increase in Mtis-specific knowledge production.However, it is essential to remember our not-too-distant past within the publishing world to ensure forward movement toward the vision many have expressed in their scholarship in recent years. How Did We Get Here?Isaac (2016) called for a "greater understanding of Mtis distinct issues" (p.26) in his report on Mtis reconciliation.Mtis rights extend beyond land claims to inclusive scholarship.Historically, Canada has "downplayed Mtis indigeneity or only recognized Mtis rights and title to extinguish them" (Gaudry, 2018, p. 1).Madden (2015) asserts that Mtis have been excluded from Crown consultations on their rights and denied access to programming despite including Mtis in section 35 of the constitution, which recognizes Mtis as Aboriginal people.Mtis exclusion is a form of discrimination, and the lack of our inclusion in research and publications was historically due to the assumption that we fit nicely under the Indigenous (First Nations, Mtis and Inuit) umbrella (Forsythe, 2022).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".