When camp dogs run over maps: 'Proper-way' research in an Aboriginal community in the North-East of Western Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 'continual flow of commentary and classification' (Dodson 1994:2) has marked research relationships with Aboriginal people since the initial invasion of this country. Under the colonisers' ethnographic gaze, Aboriginal people have been the subject of surveillance, with research linked to imperialism and colonialism perpetuating the fantasy of superiority of white nation and framing indigeneity within racialised deficit assumptions. Colonial relationships persist within institutional centres such as research spaces, as power relationships within colonial contexts continue to influence how research is conducted and interpreted (Kovach 2018). These practices have attempted to silence and exclude Aboriginal living experiences and perspectives contributing to a legacy of mistrust within Aboriginal communities. This paper explores what it means to tell a different story and demonstrates how the processes of decolonising methodologies and research methods have informed and shaped this story. The decolonisation process of research methodology is essential to Indigenous reclamation of history. The power of Indigenous oral histories in supporting the purpose of decolonising frontier history lies not in the extractive discourse of colonial practices, but in the ethical and transformative 'Aboriginal-centric practice' (Watson 2007:135) of centring Aboriginal living experiences and perceptions. Using a story about camp dogs running all over the maps, the paper describes an Indigenist approach to historical education research in an Aboriginal community in the north-east of Western Australia. The importance of valorising ethical practices and cultural safety in research is highlighted by explaining how Indigenous research methods and decolonised research design are used in the study. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates how reframed Indigenous intellectual property rights and archives are dismantling what has been remembered by whom and for what purpose. The paper argues that these collaborative and emancipatory processes support the decolonisation of history and the telling of different stories.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".