MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034688333

Why DNA "Indigenous ancestry" tests ain't worth a doggone dime

2018· other· en· W7034688333 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

VenueBulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Gardens Kew) · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPhytochemistry and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTheme (computing)Government (linguistics)AuditTest (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THIS WEEK // Survey says: We opine on a poll asking Canadians what they think should be done regarding Indigenous peoples. Statistically insignificant: The auditor general does a number on the federal government's glaring gaps in data for First Nations reserves. Doggone DNA: Think you can trust those genetic tests that tell you how 'Indian' you are? Guess you missed that recent story of a lab that verified the tribal ancestry of a chihuahua! Joining Rick Harp at the roundtable once again are Candis Callison, associate professor at UBC's Graduate School of Journalism, and Kim TallBear, associate professor of Native Studies at the University of Alberta. // Our theme is 'nesting' by birocratic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4860.026

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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