MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6988061990

“Why don’t we get along?” / « Pourquoi ne s’entend-on pas? »

2020· article· en· W6988061990 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaLiquationDiafiltrationFusible alloyTriacetinDemotion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jim Miller, Canada Research Chair in Native-Newcomer Relations and a Professor of History at the University of Saskatchewan was invited to give a lecture on the evolution of Native-newcomer interaction, paying particular attention to economic relations, treaty-making and the role of the Indian Act. His presentation described the complexities of the Native-newcomer relationship in the past and strove to provide some hopeful insights for future relations as part of the 20th anniversary of the Big Thinking lecture series on Parliament Hill.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.012
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.016

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→