Indigenous knowledge practices in British Columbia: a study in decolonization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis argues for a more expansive historiography rooted in Indigenous peoples’ oral, social and land-based modes of sharing knowledge. Such an approach may help to decolonize the practices and narratives of history in British Columbia, which have too often excluded or undermined Indigenous peoples' perspectives. Over the past several centuries, Indigenous knowledge-keepers have used their languages to maintain their oral traditions and other modes of sharing, despite colonial policies in Canada aimed at destroying them. This thesis gives careful consideration to ethical approaches to cross-cultural engagement, including researcher’s position in discourse and colonial paradigms, as well as modes of listening that emphasize attitudes of respect, flexibility, responsibility and trust-building. I travelled to Syilx (Okanagan) territory in south central British Columbia to interview five knowledgeable Upper Nicola band members about their knowledge practices. Their views, combined with those of others (from Nlaka’pamux, to Coast Salish, to Maliseet peoples and more) pointed to the importance of a vibrant Indigenous historiography at the local community level. Interviewees discussed the ways speaker/listener relationships, as well as timing and life experience, shape knowledge passed on. They also explained the ways Indigenous knowledge practices are linked to particular territories, as knowledge may help to sustain or may be sustained by particular places. Lastly, all touched on how colonial policies have impacted their knowledge practices. This thesis proposes some decolonizing approaches for engaging with Indigenous knowledge and knowledge practices. By accounting for Indigenous knowledge 'institutions' that have long existed outside of colonial frameworks, we can move one step closer to decolonization.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".