Kindred Practice: Experiences of a Research Group Working Towards Decolonization and Indigenization in the Everyday
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper engages the question of kindred practice as contemplated by three members of a research group working toward decolonization and Indigenization. The focus on kindred practice is informed by the title and description of the wâhkohtowin: Indigenizing practice, linking kindred spirits conference held in September 2014, at the University of Saskatchewan. Being each positioned uniquely in relation to social power hierarchies, for the authors, the notion of what it means to be kindred in advocacy carries nuanced dynamics and inflections. As the piece unfolds, each author elaborates key attributes of practice believed to both underlie our kindred relationship and align with the ends of decolonization and Indigenization oma masinahikan ota e-ki-nistokamâtocik e-nanitonâhkik tânisi cihkâhtaw peyakwan e-ki-isi-wâpahtamihk oma kâkwe-kweskipimâtisihk ekwa ka-kiwe-totamihk iyiniwewin. e-ki-mâmiskohtamihk esa wâhkohtowin: iyiniwewin, kâki-mâmawi-api nocihtowipisim 2014, kihci-kiskinwamâtohwikamikohk U of S. oma mina kitapicik ekwa ka-isi-atoskâtahkik, wâpahtamok mitoni cihkâhtaw peykwan e-isi-nayâhtakik oma kâkwe-kweskipitâhkik kihci-kiskinwamâtohwikamikohk ekwa ka-mâmawi-kamâtocik.
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 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 | 0.041 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it