Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since being excluded from decolonization efforts in the mid-twentieth century on the grounds that they were not colonized peoples but minorities living within sovereign states, Indigenous peoples have called for a broader understanding of self-determination. The Indigenous self-determination debate has become characterized by a spurious dichotomy between its collective and individual aspects, with the argument from leaders often being grounded in trickle-down logic that collective self-determination is a prerequisite for individual, so the former must be addressed first. As a result of such arguments and the heteropatriarchal ideologies implemented through the Indian Act, Anishinaabekwewag have been largely excluded from self-determination discourse. However, in order for self-determination to be realized in a meaningful way, a more holistic and inclusive understanding is necessary. Anishinaabekwewag occupy a unique space from which to contribute to the development of such an understanding. In this thesis I will explore and apply a framework informed by ikweism, a concept derived from Anishinaabekwe thought and conceptualizations within the context of Anishinaabe cosmologies, ontologies, epistemologies, and axiologies regarding the strength of femininity and its inherent connections with ideas regarding Anishinaabe sovereignty and self-determination. In doing so, I will demonstrate that Anishinaabe philosophies have long worked to empower Anishinaabekwewag and provide a strong foundation on which Anishinaabe self-determination discourse can find meaning going forward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".