Holding Place: Resistance, Reframing, and Relationality in the Representation of Indigenous History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores questions of commemoration in Canadian history from the perspective of two Indigenous historians: one who has engaged in public history through performance art (Anderson) and another who is building a career studying public history (Groat). Our interest lies not only in commemorative acts related to Canadian history that we must resist and reframe but also in questions of how Indigenous peoples might hold place through our own commemorative practices. The article is shaped around recollections of performance art that Anderson has conducted with the public history troupe, the Kika’ige Historical Society – work that evolved in response to celebrations of Canada’s sesquicentennial. We argue that, as demonstrated by the Kika’ige Historical Society, Indigenous peoples have resisted, reframed, and engaged in processes of relationality to create new ways of sharing Indigenous histories. We document Canadian commemorative monuments and acts that have invited resistance from Indigenous peoples. This resistance started in the early twentieth century and has increased exponentially in recent years. Indigenous peoples are now reframing colonial informed commemoration and asserting their own practices that include renaming sites in Indigenous languages, engaging ceremony and public art, and calling for policy change. We celebrate contemporary Indigenous commemorations as relational practices that distinguish themselves by their engagement with the land and the integration of human, natural, and spirit worlds.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".