A settler’s response to the TRC’s Calls to Action: A research journey towards an inclusive practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis outlines the concepts that informed my critical journey of developing an understanding of what truth and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples of this land requires of me as a person and as an inclusive designer. My thesis is a response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s (TRC) Calls to Action published in 2015. \n \nMy journey is the story of how I become aware of the impact of my settler colonialism; a system which seeks to eliminate and assimilate beliefs and peoples that obstructs its manifestation. I acknowledge the settler colonial worldview is a systemic barrier to building relationships between non-Indigenous and Indigenous peoples. My journey describes how I encounter barriers based on the construct of the “Other” and my attempts to uncover personal, societal and cultural biases. My conclusion is that for reconciliation to begin, a commitment to an ongoing decolonization process is required. \n \nI share my research journey for designers and educators to consider recognising and becoming inclusive of Indigenous peoples, their cultures and extensive knowledge systems within their research and design practices.
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 | 0.032 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".