Indigenous peoples in the accounting literature: Time for a plot change and some Canadian suggestions
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
There is a recent body of accounting literature that articulates a role for accounting in enabling the dispossession and devastation of Indigenous peoples in Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand. This literature covers the events of several hundred years and informs an understanding of the transformation of Indigenous lifestyles under colonization. In so doing, the literature largely focuses on accounting “for” Indigenous peoples rather than accounting “by” Indigenous peoples. This article urges a change that emphasizes and encourages new directions for the literature. The article begins with a discussion of relevant publications and their themes, including some discussion on the genesis of this literature. From there, the article articulates the need for multiple perspectives and a more nuanced accounting history that acknowledges Indigenous peoples as subjects with agency rather than disempowered objects. Then, by way of illustration, the article provides a description of four potential research projects in the Canadian context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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