Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes an articulation of a Waponahki intellectual tradition from the experience of a Waponahki woman attempting to position Indigenous knowledge systems in the academy. The author shows how the Waponahki intellectual tradition of weaving baskets can serve as a theoretical framework and foundation for understanding Waponahki policymaking and research. The article reports on a new law implemented in 2004 in the State of Maine that mandates the teaching of Waponahki history and culture in kindergarten through grade 12 and how teacher education programs are being developed to prepare teachers to comply with the legislation. The vision of policy direction resides in the minds of the policymaker and the community for which and with which he or she works. Like policy development, the blueprints of design for the basketry are constructed in the mind of the basketmaker; both work toward the future and continued survival of the Waponahki people. Policy development and basketmaking are more than writing texts or weaving strips of wood: both rely heavily on experience, connection to the people, and knowledge of who we are. Our basketry is intrinsic to our culture, rooted in our creation story; similarly, our policy development is critical to our decolonization and survival. The article calls for Indigenous peoples to revitalize, preserve, recognize, or even uncover their own Indigenous intellectual traditions with the vision of expanding knowledge systems.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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 teacher head, 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".