MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417303084 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcaf142

Book Review - Living Indigenous Leadership, Native Narratives on Building Strong Communities, Carolyn Kenny and Tina Ngaroimata Fraser

2025· article· en· W4417303084 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousNarrativeMetis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book offers a thoughtful exploration of Indigenous leadership through a collection of narratives and reflections. It presents a unique perspective which is seldom acknowledged or recognized on leadership that is deeply rooted in Indigenous knowledge systems, traditions, and values. Unlike conventional Western leadership models that emphasize hierarchy, individualism, and authority, the leadership discussed in this book centres on community, collaboration, and spiritual responsibility, which is central to Indigenous communities. Overall, the book is a series of narratives from North America, each offering a different but interconnected perspective on what it means to lead in an Indigenous context. The narratives emphasize relationships, responsibility, and the importance of maintaining cultural traditions while adapting to contemporary challenges. The authors are able to discuss leadership not as a title or position but as a way of being, deeply connected to the land, ancestors, and future generations. This is also a part of the framework of the authors’ society, an expression of understanding a ‘way of life’ which is not generally understood or valued outside of Indigenous communities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.009

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreReview

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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207