MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887720106 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/8k5cp

Frameworks or methods for group decision-making by or with Indigenous Peoples in Canada: A Systematic Review

2023· other· en· W6887720106 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTraditional knowledgeState (computer science)Grey literatureSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review aims to synthesize the state of recorded knowledge regarding frameworks for group decision-making with and by Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The review will shed light on possible decision-making models that could be employed by organizations, governments, and other decision-makers, as well as identifying cases where existing frameworks are insufficient or nonexistent. The primary objectives of this systematic review are to (1) review research and grey literature on the frameworks and methods used for group decision-making with and for Indigenous Peoples in Canada, and (2) identify research gaps and future areas of inquiry.

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0230.030
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.411
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207