MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414786396 · doi:10.7202/1120180ar

« Nous n’avons aucun plan stratégique pour répondre à cela »

2025· article· fr· W4414786396 on OpenAlexaffabout
Avery Holmes, Audrey R. Giles, Lyndsay Hayhurst

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d’études autochtones · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterculturalitySchool dropoutContext (archaeology)Cultural inheritance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La crosse est un sport traditionnel autochtone qui a été largement adopté par les colons. L’appropriation culturelle continue de la crosse par les non autochtones, jumelée à ses significations culturelles autochtones, en font un sujet privilégié pour étudier les efforts de réconciliation émanant des appels à l’action de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation (CVR). Nous avons utilisé la théorie du colonialisme de peuplement, une méthodologie de description qualitative, ainsi qu’une analyse thématique réflexive pour examiner la réponse de sept organismes de crosse canadiens aux cinq appels à l’action en matière de sports de la CVR. En appliquant l’analyse thématique réflexive aux descriptions fournies par les organismes participants sur la façon dont ils ont, ou pas, répondu aux appels à l’action en matière de sports de la CVR, nous avons cerné deux principaux thèmes d’analyse : le fait de se soustraire à la responsabilité de répondre aux appels à l’action, et le désir de mettre de l’avant la perspective des peuples autochtones. Nous sommes d’avis qu’en raison de l’appropriation culturelle continue par les colons dont la crosse a fait l’objet, il incombe aux organismes de crosse de répondre aux appels à l’action ainsi que d’être proactifs dans les efforts de réconciliation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueRevue d’études autochtonesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207