MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409948147 · doi:10.20319/icssh.2025.108109.

THE INDIGENOUS EXPERIENCE: REPRESENTATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND RECONCILIATION IN CANADIAN URBAN SPACE

2025· article· en· W4409948147 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Wall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceUrban spacePolitical scienceEconomic geographyGeographyLawPoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban indigenous spaces may be characterized by tangible and intangible cultural phenomena including art and architecture. Following Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Report in 2015, Canadian municipalities have pursued various paths toward inclusion of Indigenous voices in city planning. This paper examines manifestations of Indigenous cultural presence in the city of Edmonton, home to the second largest and growing urban Indigenous population in the country. In the development of a mature postcolonial civic identity, both formal and informal interventions into public space can support transformative, dialogic, cross-cultural encounters. But do civic investments in visible and discursive media promote or undermine genuine representational sovereignty and reconciliation in the ongoing context of Indigenous struggles for social and economic equity? The discussion is situated in an analytical framework including the right to the city, biopolitics and media ecology. Indigenous presence in public art and urban spaces are discussed with reference to both sanctioned or sponsored and informal, transient public art, murals, graffiti and constructions in everyday space and on sacred ground in the city. It concludes with analysis of a new, award-winning multi-media “Indigenous Experience” installation in the city’s touristic heritage park in the context of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Report of almost ten years ago.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0480.033
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.320
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→