ᓴᑭᐦᐃᑐᐃᐧᐣ (Sakihitowin/Love and Kindness): Practicing an Indigenous Process of Decolonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western theories of knowledge and research exclude Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. Such omissions are also prevalent in research regarding Indigenous peoples, as well as, in the study of racial prejudice and identification of effective ways to ameliorate its impacts. In response to the dearth of reliable, trustworthy, culturally appropriate, research concerning the negative impacts of racial prejudice, this article discusses a community-based program in Alberta that was grounded in and used Indigenous theories of knowledge and practices. The learning program was intended to mitigate impacts of racism on Nehiyaw students in grades 7, 8, and 9 through a renewal process termed Kisewatotatowin Kiskisohkemowin. This renewal process revitalized a specific aspect of the Nehiyaw students’ identity, Sakihitowin. To conclude, the article draws on Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s (2012) postcolonial theory. The article argues that the community-based, renewal process depicted a locally informed process of 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".