Walking Together: Applying OCAP® to College Research in Central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus for this project was to discover the best practices for adopting OCAP® while also looking for gaps in that knowledge, especially as they relate to the process of research ethics review. Key messages: the relationship between the researcher and the community is key to ethical research practice ; a strong disconnect exists between community practices and institutional policies and practices ; there is a need to be flexible in how traditional ethical principles are applied and implemented in Indigenous research, and to broaden the consideration of ethical questions to long after a specific research project has concluded ; thoughtful and thorough consideration of how language structures meaning and understanding needs to be a part of the research process when Indigenous peoples and communities are impacted ; definitions of “community” are far more complex than the current guidance documents suggest. Funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. A Knowledge Synthesis Grant was awarded in 2016.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".