Towards an Anishinabe Research Paradigm: Theory and Practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As this volume attests to, in recent years there has been a remarkable emergence of Indigenous research scholarship both internationally and within Canada. Indigenous theory, paradigms, and methods inform research practices which take on many forms, reflecting the diversity of Indigenous nations. Many scholars, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, have sought to decolonize past and current research approaches and advance Indigenous approaches and methods of research (Louis, 2007). Some more recent efforts have focused specifically on the revitalization of Indigenous research traditions (Archibald, 2008; Kovach, 2003; Wilson, 2008). Anishinaabe research is a form of reclaiming our stories and knowledge through personal transformation while in the pursuit of knowledge. As Anishinaabe people, we have our own worldviews, philosophies, ways of being, and research traditions that account for our relationships and existence in the world. This volume represents the diversity of ways in which Anishinaabek are tackling the challenging, yet transformative, work involved in re-creating our knowledge on our own terms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".