Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous cultures have long been under the gaze of European colonizers, governments, and anthropologists. In terms of anthropology one needs only remember that North American anthropology was founded upon the study of Native North Americans. In fact, this focus is one factor that has marked the discipline’s identity. During this long history of observation, anthropology has recorded the indigenous “other” and helped create many misconceptions. The concept of otherness is critical to deconstructing the Indianand defining it as a concept created to explain something not of the self. Thus, diverse indigenous cultures were reduced to the Indian, the “primitive” or to a race, ignoring the possible indigenous selves, groups, and histories in favor of a stagnant shadow of Indianessfueled by the dominant society. Changes in the observation of indigenous cultures came in the form of the American Indian movement in North America, from some new players in the field of anthropology, and from books such as Robert F. Berkhofer’s entitled, The White Man’s Indian published in 1978. However, if one looks to the North one is reminded of the work of Alanis Obomsawin, an indigenous filmmaker beginning her work during this same period and a woman ahead of her time. As the author of this text describes in his preface, “Obomsawin is one of the relatively few figures that can be discerned in the long fog of cultural invisibility that has engulfed First Nation’s people and their artistry, like indigenous people almost everywhere. She is a portal”. Two aspects of this quote should be highlighted: the “cultural invisibility” of First Nations people, the Abenaki in this case, and the point made by this author concerning the lack of published information concerning indigenous documentary filmmakers. Native American fiction films have
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".