Love Thy Neighbour: Repatriating Precarious Blackfoot Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores responsibility for the care of significant Blackfoot placesparticularly those situated in the province of present-day Alberta. Examples ofsignificant Blackfoot sites are given and the forces that have destroyed many ofthem are recounted. The story of how Blackfoot were removed from their territory toreserves is narrated and the effect of this on Blackfoot knowledge generation andtransfer is interpreted. The forces that destroyed significant sites, since theBlackfoot removal, are described and present-day stresses on the remaining sites arerelated. Pressure to extend hydrocarbon exploration and drilling into protectedwilderness areas are offered as an example. While current legislative and policyinitiatives in Alberta to mandate the inclusion of Blackfoot perspectives in effortsto preserve and protect heritage sites are laudable, this essay offers repatriationas a model for authentic Blackfoot participation in the care of the remaining sitesand the beings who inhabit them. Repatriation acknowledges that these places areanimate beings with whom humans live. In the Blackfoot view, protecting andpreserving places is not enough. Interdependent relationships, like the one betweenhumans and the places and beings that nourish them, must be nurtured throughunimpeded access, continued use, and ceremonies of renewal such as visiting andexchanging of gifts. While Blackfoot acknowledge that the non-Blackfoot newcomersare here to stay, they continue to imagine a future where all that from which theyhave been dispossessed will be repatriated so that they may meet their sacredresponsibilities to their territory and all the beings who dwell there.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".