Indigenous Epistemologies, Worldviews, and Theories of Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current project aims to identify and explore concepts of power from an Indigenous understanding. The topic of power is informed by vast literature that reaches back into the beginnings of western philosophy. The conceptions that result are based on a western worldview that does not incorporate cultural differences. An Indigenous theory of power can be used to inform strategies toward achieving a more equal distribution of power, and encourage successful Indigenous-settler reconciliation. Within the academic setting, Indigenous scholars are developing Indigenous research initiatives aimed at decolonizing methodologies and achieving intellectual self-determination (Smith, 2012, p.120). Utilizing a decolonization framework saturated with reflexivity, Indigenous research methods in conversation with grounded theory will be applied to identify an Indigenous worldview of power. Researcher reflexivity, relationships with community and research-based support systems are requisite to a decolonization research framework (Smith, 1999, p.138). Data collection will occur at M’Chigeeng First Nation and the Chief of that community has been recruited as community partner to this project. Together we aim to answer Indigenous questions to improve Indigenous lives with research based on standards for how we should structure our relationships with each other and with all of creation (Wilson, 2001, p.177). Indigenous research methods combined grounded theory allows the project to bridge worldviews, while allowing for relationships to guide the process. A literature analysis, interviews, sharing circles and review of historical records will be used.
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 | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".