Positionality and Research: “Two-Eyed Seeing” With a Rural Ktaqmkuk Mi’kmaw Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As evident from the original proposals for self-negotiation from the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, the formation of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation represented a small victory for Ktaqmkuk Mi’kmaq: recognition. Validation of the existence of Ktaqmkuk Mi’kmaq outside of Miawpukek was a small step toward decolonization yet cannot be a panacea for reconciliation. This study was a collaborative project in the Mi’kmaw community of Ewipkek through the No’kmaq Village Band and Elder Calvin White, a known champion of Mi’kmaw rights in the province. This project emerged from a collaborative research effort between the community of Ewipkek and Grenfell Campus, Memorial University. This article presents current approaches, principles, and considerations for researchers working with Indigenous communities, drawing from both academic literature and the collaborative experience working with the community of Ewipkek. This collaborative project describes the different characteristics of a Western research paradigm versus an Indigenous research paradigm that can support the application of the Two-Eyed Seeing framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".