MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413029015 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2025.2539693

”It’s not really about the surf”: exploring Mi’kmaw perspectives of the Unama’ki Surf programme

2025· article· en· W4413029015 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Bettina Callary, Simon Barrick, Neylan Stevens, Julie Baribault

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSurf zonePsychologyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Unama’ki Surf Programme is run by the First Nation Mi’kmaq Physical Activity Leaders (MPALs), in conjunction with the Surfing Association of Nova Scotia on the shores of Unama’ki (Cape Breton Island) in the territory known by its colonial name of Canada. This participatory action research project re-launched a programme shut down by COVID and explored Mi’kmaq ways of knowing about place-based cultural sport participation from the perspectives of leaders and youth involved in the Unama’ki Surf Programme. Data were collected over 2 years with seven youth, two youth surf leaders, five MPALs, three Mi’kmaw sport leaders, and an Elder. Researcher fieldnotes were taken while supporting the programme and leading workshops in which participants painted the bottom of surfboards. They were encouraged to paint their cultural identity in the Unama’ki Surf Programme. Photos, video, and audio recordings of conversations were taken during the workshops, when the youth were surfing, and when they were on the beach. We produced three themes: surfing as a means of connecting with water, supporting psychologically safe growth, and building and supporting Mi’kmaw communities. Findings are discussed with regard to the meaningfulness of the Indigenization of the surf programme.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207