MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7046057704

Community Responses to Violence in Holman, Northwest Territory

2011· article· en· W7046057704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningIntervention (counseling)Presentation (obstetrics)ConfidentialitySuicide preventionPower (physics)Principal (computer security)The arctic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. When we talk about narrative, we often focus on the story and the teller, but rarely on the listener. Yet often the first step in healing is finding someone who will listen to you and truly hear your story. Alice Kimiksana and others in the Canadian Arctic village of Holman, who are concerned about the community’s high suicide rate, understand this basic healing principal very well. They have worked together to create a Help Line—a confidential listening and crisis intervention program—for their community. Kimiksana talks about how in Holman, as in other northern communities, trauma led parents to teach their children not to talk about their pain, their fear, or their abusive experiences, including those that occurred in the residential schools. As a result, even years later, the pain, fear, and hurt can become unbearable, leading sometimes to alcohol and drug abuse, and sometimes to violence toward oneself or others. Educational groups, Healing Circles, and youth groups are starting to help. However, unless there are helpers who will listen when people begin to tell their stories, this first step in healing cannot take place and the cycle of intergenerational trauma will not be broken. Kimiksana planned on giving her presentation jointly with Holman Elder, Kate Inuktalik, but her co-presenter became ill on route to Quebec City. After recuperating in the Yellowknife Hospital, Kate Inuktalik returned home. Kimiksana made sure her friend would be well taken care of, then proceeded to Quebec City and gave the presentation. WHA

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→