MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4210311374 · doi:10.1353/aca.2021.0020

A Thought-Exercise in Decolonization: Reflections from a Mi'kmaw Historian Revisiting the Acadiensis Readers

2021· article· en· W4210311374 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mercedes Peters

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcadiensis · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScholarshipDecolonizationContext (archaeology)Reading (process)HistoryAction (physics)SociologyAestheticsMedia studiesPoliticsArtPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Thought-Exercise in Decolonization:Reflections from a Mi'kmaw Historian Revisiting the Acadiensis Readers Mercedes Peters (bio) THIS COMMENTARY IS ALMOST A YEAR-AND-A-HALF in the making. It began with an email inquiry about whether or not I would be interested in doing a Mi'kmaw historian's reading of a set of readers Acadiensis published in the early 1990s. I am currently training as a historian in an era where more scholars than ever are considering what it means to do scholarship that breaks down the oppressive structures that have shaped the academy for generations before us, and, at the same time, my lived experiences as a Mi'kmaw woman shape my work. So, in the original plan, I was going to write a commentary on what The Atlantic Region to Confederation and The Atlantic Provinces in Confederation looked like through the eyes of a historian using a decolonizing lens.1 Before I get into what I mean by decolonization in the context of scholarly writing, I think it is important to explain why this forum piece took over a year to produce because, in an almost serendipitous way, it was the extra time I spent thinking about this commentary that allowed it to morph into what it eventually became. This is still, in part, a commentary on the Acadiensis readers I was initially asked to review, but more than that it is an attempt to make transparent the kinds of collaborative thought-work and action that must go into decolonizing scholarship in general and in the Atlantic Region specifically (Mi'kma'ki/Mi'gma'gi, Nitassinan, Nunatsiavut, Peskotomuhkati, and Wəlastəkwihkok). This is by no means a definitive or prescriptive discussion about how we could decolonize writing histories in and about this region, nor is it a piece that simply asks for more representation of Indigenous peoples in our field. Instead, in the little space I do have, I want to start a conversation by asking questions [End Page 115] of those who do history – or any scholarship, for that matter – in and about the "Atlantic Region" however one might define it.2 Decolonization, despite a prefix that denotes a closure of, or a moving away from, is a remarkably generative process that necessitates a collaborative effort of learning, unlearning, and thinking beyond the colonial boundaries our discipline has set for us. To demonstrate this, at least on a smaller scale, I have set up this forum piece as a kind of collaboration. At the core of my commentary sits three conversations I had with three brilliant historians doing work on the Atlantic Region: Harvey Amani Whitfield, Natasha Simon, and Thomas Peace. Each conversation ended up centering around a key theme that got me thinking not as much about the original Acadiensis readers as I did about the possibilities inherent in a new generation of readers. What follows is an overview of how these conversations shaped my own thinking about how colonialism has impacted Atlantic Region historiographical projects, and what it would look like to embark on a rewriting of this region's history in a way that refuses the colonial boundaries that have shaped it. The pandemic's impact What the isolation that came with COVID-19 offered was a seemingly endless time to think, something that is not always beneficial to someone trying to fit their thoughts into a three-to-four-thousand-word piece. At the same time as we reckoned with the inequalities in our societies that the pandemic fed upon and made worse, this year also presented an inescapable barrage of colonial violence that made focusing and existing as an Indigenous woman in the academy exhausting beyond words. This experience is not isolated to 2020 and 2021, but there was something about the lack of interaction with our usual support networks that made it particularly grueling. When I began writing this back in October of 2020, I watched live from my home in Vancouver as RCMP officers, DFO officials, and settler fishers launched attacks on Mi'kmaw lobster fishers from Sipekne'katik First Nation for exercising treaty rights. I took [End Page 116] off for home, hoping to be...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,024
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,981
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,156

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0240,046
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0450,054
Communication savante0,0190,012
Science ouverte0,0030,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,025
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,288
Écart entre enseignants0,255 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcadiensisMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207