MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402616212 · doi:10.1002/wat2.1754

Anishinaabek responsibilities and relationships are demonstrated in N'bi (Water) Declarations

2024· article· en· W4402616212 on OpenAlex
Susan Chiblow

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

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessProcess management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article explores Indigenous knowledge on N'bi. It examines differing worldviews and discusses what Indigenous knowledge is and how Indigenous Peoples have been sharing their knowledge. This article discusses Anishinaabek approaches to N'bi and responsibilities to N'bi that include responsibilities to the celestial beings. Indigenous Peoples have been sharing their knowledge on N'bi through Declarations and scholarly articles primarily drafted by Indigenous Peoples themselves. The knowledge shared commonly explains that N'bi is alive with responsibilities. The Declarations explain women are responsible for N'bi and offer solutions for the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in water decision‐making regimes. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change Human Water > Rights to Water

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.247 · 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