MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406026102 · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00852

Indigenous Knowledge in Introductory Chemistry: Use of an Interior Salish Pit-Cooking Practice as a Rich Contextual Framework

2025· article· en· W4406026102 on OpenAlexaffabout
W. Stephen McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCurriculumSophisticationChemistryContext (archaeology)Traditional knowledgeScience educationSociologyPedagogyGeographySocial scienceEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the Calls to Action of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a learning activity has been developed for use in introductory chemistry, exploring a traditional food-preparation practice of the Syilx and Secwépemc Peoples of British Columbia’s Interior Plateau. The activity begins the course with framing questions highlighting the sophisticated Indigenous knowledge involved in an elaborate and precisely engineered pit-cooking process. As the course progresses, the activity revisits and answers these questions using chemical principles of kinetics, thermodynamics, acid–base chemistry, and organic substitution reaction mechanisms. In alignment with principles of Two-Eyed Seeing, the learning activity fosters appreciation for the sophistication of regional Indigenous knowledge, presented as complementary to Western science. Survey responses ( N = 207) indicate a high student interest and engagement with the topic, and thematic analysis of open-ended written responses regarding the activity ( N = 33) reveal recognition of a meaningful application of multiple course concepts, admiration for the depth and complexity of the Indigenous knowledge involved, and appreciation for the authentic manner in which an Indigenous cultural context was integrated into the curriculum, demonstrating the activity’s success in promoting an understanding and respect for Indigenous knowledge within a scientific framework.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207