MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019753198

Indigenising & Decolonising Social Innovation: Lessons for Systemic Design

2022· other· en· W7019753198 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOCAD University Open Research Repository (OCAD University) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHarmColonialismLeverage (statistics)Maslow's hierarchy of needsHybridity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ninanâskomon enahipayik ôta kâwîcihitâsoyân, ôma kahatoskâtamân, kawihtamâtakok niya niteyihcikewin kahkiyaw ohci kiyawâw.
\nSâkihitowin ahcahkowan.
\n
\nI give thanks for the opportunity to be here, to do this work and to share my thoughts with each of you.
\nIn the spirit of love.
\n
\nIndigenous worldviews have been rooted in systems thinking for thousands of years. Many Indigenous epistemologies are based on holistic, universalist, and de-centralised modes of perceiving the world and its natural systems. These stand in contrast to dominant Western epistemologies, which are based on linear, hierarchical, and discrete modes of thinking. The creation and imposition of settler colonial systems from these modes of thinking, rooted in values of competition and dominance, bear responsibility for many problematic events that occurred under colonisation, such as the creation of the Indian Residential School system.
\n
\nViewed this way, I remember that systemic design is a tool envisioned to leverage social change, but even as a well-intentioned application of mostly Western philosophies for making systems change, I can clearly see the systems it purports to reform have harmed and continue to cause harm to Indigenous peoples today. Additionally, where Indigenous perspectives have informed and shaped Western epistemologies about complex systems, it has often been done without credit. An example of this is in our own backyard, with Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” based in some part (and largely unacknowledged) on the Blackfoot teachings from Southern Alberta (Blackstock, 2011) that Maslow himself experienced.
\n
\nGiven these impacts, we must tread lightly. Social innovation shows promise as an important tool in the reparation of our customary laws, our languages, our kinship practices, and our cultural traditions. It can reform and reimagine policy work in ways that are flexible and adaptable and can support our communities’ and nations’ needs, given the right contexts. It would be a mistake to seek out a pan-Indigenous approach, but engaging in multiple Indigenous epistemologies, building relationships and grounding our work in relational accountability provides a valuable first step in working together under the right relations. As Indigenous communities and the Canadian state untangle complex issues such as child and family service systems, address the needs of nations like constitution-building, or ask ourselves how we might create a fully immersive school system rooted in the land, social innovation represents a way in which Indigenous communities can come together and explore the magnitude of where we are now, how we got here, and what we will need to move forward.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0100.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.124 · 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