“What We’ve Said Can be Proven in the Ground”: Stó:lō Sovereignty and Historical Narratives at Xá:ytem, 1990–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Less than a month after the conclusion of the Oka crisis in Québec in the fall of 1990, development threatened another Indigenous heritage site, this one on the outskirts of Mission, British Columbia. Workers were preparing to blast apart a large stone and clear land for a 14-house subdivision on a sloping hill near the Fraser River. Indigenous elders, along with archaeologists and activists, responded rapidly by stepping forward to challenge the destruction of the site. Xá:ytem, the stone, is a sacred site for Stó:lō peoples, who have been living in the area for millennia. This paper examines the struggle to save Xá:ytem to reveal the tactical hybridity that can emerge when conceptions of heritage are entangled with expressions of sovereignty. When situated in the context of other Indigenous protests, analysis of the historical narratives deployed at Xá:ytem reveals much about the surprising and tenacious nature of heritage activism in late twentieth-century Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".