MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984607618 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.8550

Decolonizing Libraries, Archives and Museums: Communicating Partial Perspectives and Multiple World Views

2018· article· en· W2984607618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Romany Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIndigenous Knowledge Systems and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcknowledgementDecolonizationIndigenousSilenceSociologyTraditional knowledgeFunction (biology)Public relationsFacilitatorPolitical scienceMedia studiesAestheticsLawComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Libraries, Archives and Museums are interesting institutions as they share common goals of preserving and providing access to ‘knowledge.’ This knowledge, however, is not neutral. The history of these institutions began in the ‘West’ as a nation building project meant to solidify notions of superiority over ‘other’ nations and peoples. The processes involved in selecting what knowledge and artifacts are worthy of preservation and are thus available to the public, provide insight into who is valuable to the nation and what knowledge is legitimate. The colonizing function of these institutions is evident as they alienate, silence, stigmatize and erase the lives of indigenous peoples. Yet, this need not be the case. For professionals in these fields, decolonizing these spaces involves more than simply making note of best practices for indigenous peoples as a new user group. Continued involvement in a process of decolonization must begin with the acknowledgement of multiple valid world views and multiple valid ways of knowing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicIndigenous Knowledge Systems and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207