Learning towards decolonising relationships at standing rock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline that took place at Standing Rock in North Dakota was the largest gathering of Indigenous Peoples in recent U.S. history. Thousands of people, Indigenous and otherwise, came together from across North America and beyond to protect waters and sacred sites threatened by the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. Our study examined the learning of Canada-based pipeline activists who travelled to Standing Rock to support the opposition. In this paper, we argue that participating in the Standing Rock resistance camp was an experience rich in informal learning and education for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants, and that this learning might be best understood as learning towards decolonising relationships. Building from the theoretical concepts of respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and relationship as the overarching umbrella, we outline three types of relationships central to how Standing Rock activists learned within the resistance camp: relationships to people, to community, and to self. A focus on these relationships – and the centrality of respect, responsibility, and reciprocity to them – provides insight into how the resistance community created opportunities for participants to start to unlearn settler-colonialism, and learn towards a decolonising relationality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".