Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Aboriginality must be understood as an artefact of the colonial encounter. Both native and settler began to articulate it in the process of coming to terms with one another’s presence and redefined it as the local and global context of their interaction changed’ (Beckett 1989: 118). Beckett has Australia in mind, but his remark is equally pertinent to the meetings between indigenous peoples and Europeans in other settler societies. When French persons stepped ashore along what is now called the St Lawrence river in Canada, and their British counterparts alighted on Antipodean shores, they encountered diverse peoples with their own polities, economies and social mores. These were richly tied within complex belief systems embracing all aspects of their lives and the environments within which they and their ancestors had lived from time immemorial. After differing periods of initial contact, reflecting varying degrees of mutuality and highly localised variations in social and political relations, such peoples were to endure a strikingly similar series of experiences. The result was the formation of what I have called aboriginal minorities. This chapter describes the processes through which ‘aboriginality’ and ‘the aboriginal’ were created, and how their minority status was established despite ongoing competing definition and resistance among those whom these processes affected. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.027 |
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".