MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

First Nations Environmental Contaminants Program: Integrating existing knowledge on potential contaminated sites within the Nation

2022· article· en· W4408460231 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brandon Doxtator, Sheri Longboat, James G. Longstaffe, Ela Mastej

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContaminationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous communities are disproportionately affected by chemical contamination due to the colonial policies that have contributed to inequitable management practices and lack of access to decision-making processes. Dominant environmental assessment frameworks pertaining to chemical contamination are limited to assessing physiological implications of chemical substances on living organisms and exclude the crucial mental, cultural, sociological, and political dimensions of chemical contamination, and they notably do not consider the effects of contamination on the complex bond between Indigenous peoples and their lands. This interdisciplinary research in collaboration with the Oneida Nation of the Thames aims to integrate scientific data and community-based knowledge sources on risk assessment and risk communication of chemical exposure. The project has two objectives: to assess the contaminants present on the lands of the Oneida Nation and to construct an all-inclusive knowledge integration platform to mobilize contamination-related knowledge. The second objective is designed towards community engagement, prioritizing youth participation and empowerment through knowledge sharing and skills enhancement. This exploratory research is projected to address uncertainty related to potential contamination which limits future community planning. On a broader scale, it will inform environmental assessment frameworks pertaining to chemical contamination to include Indigenous perspectives which will expand theoretical dimensions of current frameworks toward more robust practical outcomes. Funding: FNECP, RBC, GIER, SSHRC

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207