Bibliographic record
Abstract
A considerable body of scholarly research now accords with long-held Indigenous prophecy in affirming the ongoing importance of Indigenous knowledge for the health and wellness of contemporary Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and their environments. Yet, while much research has examined Indigenous knowledge and traditions in more natural or rural contexts, there has been to date very little examination of the presence and character of Indigenous knowledge and traditions in more urban contexts. This dissertation redresses this gap in the research via an analysis of Indigenous knowledge, traditions, and storytelling in Toronto and their prophetic implications for contemporary Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. \nThe analysis is based on a comparative literature review of Indigenous knowledge, traditions, and community as they have been practiced in urban and non-urban locales, long-term participation within Toronto’s Indigenous community particularly as a tour guide for the highly-regarded community-based Great ‘Indian’ Bus Tour of Toronto, and in-depth semi-structured interviews with a small group of Anishinaabe Torontonians regarding their perceptions of the city and the practice of urban Indigenous knowledge and traditions. These lines of investigation revealed that land-based urban Indigenous knowledge and storytelling traditions are practiced in at least some cities like Toronto in ways that exhibit significant similarities and continuities with those practiced in non-urban locales. Land-based stories of Toronto’s Indigenous heritage shared among Indigenous Torontonians portray Toronto as a traditional Indigenous territory, promote life – and land – affirming connections to places in the city and the development of a cosmopolitan ethics of place that may constitute a significant pathway to the Eighth Fire of Anishinaabe prophecy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".