Miyupimaatisiiun in Eeyou Istchee: Healing and Decolonization in Chisasibi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is about ongoing processes of decolonization that are taking place in Indigenous communities across the globe and in the academia. Its twofold purpose is to explore the connections between autonomy and wellbeing in Indigenous contexts through a case study in the Cree Nation of Chisasibi, Eeyou Istchee (James Bay, northern Quebec) and to elucidate the decolonizing research paradigm developed in collaboration with the community. \n \nThis study shows that approaches to decolonization and healing are varied, transitional, relational and creative. They are specific to particular nations, communities, groups within communities, and individuals. Often they are informed by personal histories, experiences and ontologies that come together to inspire and build opportunities for change and living a good life. It also seeks to caution against prescriptive and normative approaches to Indigenous-settler relations that bracket everyday experience and local processes of resurgence all the while bringing attention to how structural and institutional forces frame local action. \n \nThe collective effort in Chisasibi implies that everyone is doing their part in decolonizing the mind, body and spirit of the community, the best way they know how. It is about each individual finding what they hold sacred and honoring it in everyday actions. Even though decolonization is only rarely expressed as such, for those that have been involved with this project, decolonization means caring and loving for one another and invigorating the body with the effort of surviving on the land. It includes openness to the world and the recognition that decolonization is a collective and creative undertaking, of making something new from the everyday encounters, and more importantly, of creating inclusive spaces for these encounters to continually take place.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".