Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces readers to the publication archive of Our Lives: Canada’s First Black Women’s Newspaper, founded by the Black Women’s Collective in 1986 and housed within the digital collection of the Rise Up! Feminist Archive. By situating the publication Our Lives as a potential site for recuperating histories of Black feminist resistance, this article demonstrates the role that community or activist archives play in the preservation of collective history: combating institutional modes of erasure and challenging dominant historical narratives. It argues that there is a need for further examination of the pedagogical and ideological elements of activist archives and their contribution to social movements and archival practice. Rather than considering activist archives as relatives of traditional archival institutions, it suggests that these projects need to be examined as sites of active learning in the tradition of community-embedded experiments. Building on recent scholarship, it investigates the discursive continuity between archives and historical narratives, and it reconceptualizes the term archives to include alternative sites and materials for the reconstructing the stories of historically marginalized groups. Finally, the article argues that archival projects need to adapt to new forms of archival representation and contexts, allowing for shifts in traditional methods and definitions. RÉSUMÉ Cet article amène les lecteurs à la rencontre des archives liées à la publication Our Lives: Canada’s First Black Women’s Newspaper, fondé par le Black Women’s Collective en 1986 et qui est hébergé dans la collection numérique de Rise Up! Feminist Archive. En positionnant la publication Our Lives comme lieu potentiel de réappropriation des histoires de la résistance féministe noire, cet article démontre le rôle que les archives communautaires ou militantes jouent dans la préservation de l’histoire collective: elles luttent contre les modalités institutionnelles d’effacement et défient les discours historiques dominants. Il soutient qu’un examen plus poussé des éléments pédagogiques et idéologiques des archives militantes et leur contribution aux mouvements sociaux et aux pratiques en archivistique est nécessaire. Plutôt que de considérer les archives militantes comme apparentées aux institutions d’archives traditionnelles, il suggère que ces projets doivent être étudiés comme des lieux d’apprentissage actif dans la lignée des expériences ancrées dans la communauté. S’appuyant sur les études récentes, il scrute les continuités narratives entre les archives et les discours historiques et reconceptualise le terme « archives » afin d’y intégrer des lieux et des matériaux alternatifs pour rebâtir les histoires de groupes historiquement marginalisé. Enfin, l’article soutient que les projets archivistiques doivent s’adapter à de nouvelles formes de représentations et de contextes archivistiques, permettant ainsi de modifier les méthodes et les définitions traditionnelles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.085 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".