The Indigenous Experience and Cultural Renewal, Decolonization, and Transformation in the Ottawa Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is an ethnography of 30 people on Indigenous experiences, place-making and the cultural practices that are used to construct meaning and cultural renewal that leads to healing and decolonization in the Ottawa, Ontario area. The research explores the lives of those who reside in the city and have never lived in traditional territories, and those who continue to have roots there. These practices are observed through the lens of the three bodies of the individual, social, and body politic. Identity has moved beyond legacies of essentialized and bounded notions which in actuality are multiple and fluid. The study revealed themes of a continuum of experiences and practices including: territorialists who reside in the homeland; returners who have the Indigenous diasporic experience of longing for a homeland; learners who have been displaced from Indigenous communities for various reasons but have initiated cultural renewal; adaptors who have little to no connection to a homeland or Indigenous groups in the city; and urbanites who accept the city-as-home, often with multiple generations of residence in the city. The social body is enacted by Indigenous people who construct communities in cities through social practices such as welcoming others through physical places like Friendship Centres, universities, and social service organizations. Connections also occur in urbans hubs of activity through various practices such as cultural and arts events, ceremonies, and conferences. Cultural renewal is fundamental for the well-being of Indigenous people who have experienced decades of oppression as a result of the regulation of bodies, social actions, land and self-determination by the body politic. The cultural renewal of Indigenous people in cities creates space for healing, decolonization, reclamation, restoration, reconciliation and renewal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".