Ktunaxa traditional knowledge : building Ktunaxa capacity for the future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis honours the expectations of the Ktunaxa in employing their knowledge, culture, and experience in the continued investment and strengthening of the Ktunaxa people. This thesis informs Ktunaxa capacity development through the stories and insights of six highly regarded Ktunaxa Elders. Utilizing Indigenous methodology, whereby the Elders were honoured as leaders within the process, two Kitchen Table Dialogue Circles (KTDCs) were held along with an individual interview. This thesis was grounded in Indigenous ethics in addition to adhering to the Royal Roads University Ethics Policy while honouring the ethical expectations of the Ktunaxa people. The findings and recommendations are related to acknowledgement of trauma and its cumulative impact; importance of cultural connection in identity, wellness, and success; and strategic vision for Ktunaxa knowledge transfer. This inquiry emphasizes the commitment and action necessary to champion change for the collective benefit of the Ktunaxa people. Q̓api qapsin kin ‘itkin hin ‘isti Ktunaxa, which means everything you do, you do for Ktunaxa.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".