MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014932398

Reforming Federal Indian Housing Programs: The Socio-Cultural, Political, & Health Benefits of Utilizing Indigenous Epistemologies & Architecture

2020· dissertation· en· W7014932398 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArizona State University Library Digital Repository (Arizona State University) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)MetisAccountabilityColonialismPublic housingSustainabilityCultural sustainabilityLocal government
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

abstract: The relationship between settler-colonial governments and Indigenous nations has been a contentious one, filled with disingenuity and fueled by the abuse of power dynamics. Specifically, colonial governments have repeatedly used power in mapping, cultural Othering, resource control, and research methodologies to assimilate, acculturate, or otherwise dominate every aspect of Indigenous lives. A relatively recent pushback from Indigenous peoples led to the slow reclamation of sovereignty, including in the United States. Revamped federal Indian programs allegedly promote tribal self-determination, yet they paradoxically serve a vast quantity of cultures through singular blanket programs that are blind to the cultural component of Indigenous identity - the centerfold of colonial aggression for centuries. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Public and Indian Housing is no exception, using a Western framework to provide generic services that neither serve cultural needs nor are tailored to the specific environment traditional homes were historically and epistemologically suited for. This research analyzes the successes of new programs as well as the failures of the federal government to conduct responsible research and promote the authentic self-determination of tribes in terms of housing and urban development. It also considers the successes and failures of tribes to effectively engage in program reformation negotiation, community planning, and accountability measures to ensure their communities are served with enough culturally-appropriate, sustainable housing without mistrusting their own housing entities. Solutions for revising this service gap are proposed, adhering to a framework that centers diverse cultural values, community input, and functional design to increase each tribe’s implementation of self-determination in HUD housing programs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueArizona State University Library Digital Repository (Arizona State University)Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207