Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dictionaries are wonderful things. They help us understand meaning. In the everyday when we Indigenous people read the words “Aborigine/Aboriginal,” “Indian,” “Native,” we tend not to ask the question: What is their etymology? Instead we register at some level that these words have come to be connected to us. The word “aborigine” has its roots in Latin and in pre-Roman times referred to “from the beginning.” A few centuries later the English extended this meaning to refer to the original inhabitants of a country or region and is the most common use of the word outside of Australia. For example, the Aboriginal people of Canada homogenize three groups as descendants of the original inhabitants: Métis, Indians and Inuit. The Collins English Dictionary of 1979 denotes an Aboriginal as another word for an Aborigine which is defined as:— T h e “ A b o r i g i n e ” a s a W h i t e P o s s e s s i o n —Aborigine: 1. also called: native Australian (Austral) native (Austral) Black . a member of a dark-skinned hunting and gathering people who were living in Australia when European settlers arrived. Often shortened to Abo . 2. Any of the languages of this people. In this chapter I show that it is not our cultural densities by which we have been and are known by those who took our lands (Andersen 2009). Instead "race" is the predominant marker by which most of the colonizers' looking, speaking, and knowing has been and continues to be done in relation to the racialized Other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".