Moving in the Circle: Indigenous Solidarity for Canadian Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Libraries face new challenges in an era of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples as First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities are reclaiming their voices and building a new framework for its relationship with other Canadians. In order for libraries to begin the process of responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action, library staff should educate themselves on the role that the library has played in the marginalization of Indigenous peoples. As 2017 marked both the 150th anniversary of Confederation and the 140th anniversary of the Indian Act, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the relationship between Indigenous peoples and settlers, especially in the context of library. This paper aims to introduce some of the systems that define settler-Indigenous relationships and proposes solidarity and relationship building as a path towards reconciliation. Les bibliothèques font face à de nouveaux défis dans une ère de réconciliation avec les peuples autochtones alors que les communautés des Premières nations, des Métis et des Inuits retrouvent leurs voix et établissent une nouvelle structure pour leurs relations avec les autres Canadiens. Pour que les bibliothèques puissent commencer à répondre aux 94 appels à l'action lancés par la Commission de vérité et réconciliation, le personnel des bibliothèques devrait se renseigner sur le rôle qu'elles ont joué dans la marginalisation des peuples autochtones. Comme l'année 2017 marquait à la fois le 150e anniversaire de la Confédération et le 140e anniversaire de la Loi sur les Indiens, le moment est venu de réfléchir aux relations entre les peuples autochtones et les colonisateurs, surtout dans le contexte des bibliothèques. Cet article vise à présenter certains des systèmes qui définissent les relations entre colonisateurs et autochtones, et propose que la solidarité et l'établissement de bonnes relations façonnent la voie vers la réconciliation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.107 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".