Investigating the Impact of the Living Archives on Eugenics in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Living Archives on Eugenics in Western Canada is an online resource for community engagement and historical awareness with a particular emphasis on empowering survivors of state-enforced sterilization. This article reports on a qualitative impact study that reflects on secondary literature and interviews with 14 project participants to assess the extent to which the Living Archives impacted its members (including scholars, students, community partners, and survivors) and fulfilled its own stated goals (knowledge mobilization, research, and disability activism). While some of these impacts initially appear limited, the article, using the lenses of community archives, social justice impact, ethic of care, and critical disability studies, explores how the Archives counters the symbolic annihilation attempted by eugenic discourses and programs by giving both voice and editorial autonomy to survivors of Alberta’s sterilization program. The Living Archives project also developed a strong network of academics, activists, community members, and survivors, who modelled ways in which archival pursuits can successfully draw on an ethics of care. This article suggests that the Living Archives project should serve as a model for other digital archival projects to emulate. RÉSUMÉLiving Archives on Eugenics in Western Canada est une ressource en ligne pour l’engagement communautaire et la sensibilisation historique qui met un accent particulier sur l’autonomisation des survivants aux stérilisations imposées par l’État. Cet article rend compte d’une étude d’impact qualitative qui offre des réflexions sur des sources secondaires et des entretiens avec 14 participants à un projet visant à évaluer l’étendue avec laquelle Living Archives a eu une incidence sur ses membres (parmi lesquels des chercheurs universitaires, étudiants, partenaires communautaires et survivants) et a rempli les objectifs fixés (connaissance, mobilisation, recherche et militantisme en faveur des droits des handicapés). Bien que ces retombés semblent de prime abord limitées, cet article, adoptant l’angle des archives communautaires, de l’incidence de la justice sociale, de l’éthique de la compassion et de l’étude critique de la situation des handicapés, explore comment Archives s’oppose à la tentative d’annihilation symbolique des discours et programmes eugénistes en donnant à la fois une voix et une autonomie éditoriale aux survivants du programme de stérilisation de l’Alberta. Le projet des Living Archives a également développé un réseau solide de chercheurs, d’activistes, de membres de la communauté et de survivants, offrant des modèles d’avenues pour un développement réussi des archives sur les bases de l’éthique de la compassion. Cet article avance que le projet Living Archives devrait servir de modèle pour les autres projets d’archives numériques.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".