MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tino Rangatiratanga: Indigenous (Māori) Sovereignty and the Messy Realities of Reconciliation Efforts at the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup

2024· article· en· W4399932559 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousTourismPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyEnvironmental ethicsEconomic growthLawPoliticsEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizers of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup event made explicit their aim to "be and do better" regarding the inclusion and representation of Indigenous peoples. This was particularly important because in seeking to jointly secure the right to host the event, both Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia made much of including and showcasing Indigenous cultures in their respective countries. Subsequently, organizers incorporated Indigenous flags, language, and rituals throughout the event. FIFA appointed cultural advisors to enhance cultural understanding among teams. However, the Spanish national team, "La Roja," sparked controversy by posting a video mocking the haka, "Ka Mate," a cultural treasure to Māori, the Indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. This led to public outcry, calls for apology, and efforts to reconcile relations. In this commentary, we explore this incident, critiquing FIFA and the current state of event management regarding the inclusion of Indigeneity and engagement with Indigenous Peoples.

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.

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 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 score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
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