MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412432078 · doi:10.17953/a3.20289

A Guide to Inter-Indigenous Co-Labbing

2025· article· en· W4412432078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mylène Yannick Gamache, Adrienne Huard, Nicole Stonyk, A. E. D. Daniels, Hope Ace

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Indian Culture and Research Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSociologyAnthropologyEthnologyHistoryPolitical scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Northern Plains inter-Indigenous relations have been affected by racist, gendered, heteronormative colonial laws, policies, fantasies, discourses, and geopolitical borders. American and Canadian settler statecraft apparatuses, which include federal statutes and acts, have worked to codify Indigenous peoples into “monoethnic identities” (Vrooman 2012, 15) as grounds for defining indigeneity, questioning legitimacy, managing populations, severing relationalities, stealing lands and resources, and mitigating Indigenous resistances. While Nêhiyaw scholar Rob Alexander Innes and settler scholar Nicholas P. Vrooman argue that the Iron Alliance—an economic, military and social confederacy comprising Northern Plains Nêhiyaw, Nakoda, Métis, and Anishinaabe multicultural bands (Innes 2021, 94) active from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries—has been broadly “overlooked by US scholars” (Vrooman 2012, 6), we affirm that Indigenous women and gender-diverse voices have been historically unheard and unseen between the lines of published Iron Alliance historiographies. Our research seeks to activate gendered inter-Indigenous networks, to reconceptualize critical borderland studies, and to situate place (in particular, Winnipeg) as a constellation of kinscapes.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Indian Culture and Research JournalSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207