Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract / Resume What are the functions and meanings of oral versus written texts for Indigenous peoples? In this document, I consider how oral and written texts have possibly contributed to the construction of society[ies] and to the foundational differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies. I then consider the systematic shifts in norms overtime, arguing that oral societies developed as consensus-based societies, functioning with internal accord. Finally, I consider the question: how can we, as Indigenous peoples, continue to transfer accord accurately with our meaning of truth, by which I mean our ontology, epistemology, values, and world views? Quels sont les fonctions et le sens de la tradition orale et des ecrits pour les peuples autochtones? L'article examine comment la tradition orale et les ecrits ont pu contribuer a bâtir les societes et a etablir des differences generales entre les societes autochtones et non autochtones. On examine ensuite les deplacements systematiques des normes avec le temps en mettant de l'avant que les societes de tradition orale se sont developpees comme des societes fondees sur le consensus et l'accord commun de leurs membres. Finalement, on pose la question suivante : comment pouvons-nous, a titre de peuples autochtones, continuer de transferer la notion d'accord avec notre definition de la verite, c'est-a-dire notre ontologie, notre epistemologie, nos valeurs et nos visions du monde? Introduction In this paper, I attempt to understand human communication systems, in particular, the functions of, and differences between, oral communication and written text communication. To do this, I first briefly outline what I mean by communication and language for both humans and other animals, following which I explore the functions of oral and written text communication and try to come to some reasonable understandings of the meanings of oral and written text communication. By exploring the functions and meaning of oral and written text, I next consider how these have possibly contributed to the construction of societypes] and to the foundational differences between societies that are based on oral texts and those based on written texts. These attempts lead me to try to understand the systematic shifts in norms which play themselves out through the hegemony of one truth, in this case globalization and a capitalist mentality. I argue that oral societies develop as consensus-based societies, functioning with internal accord. Finally, I consider the question: how can we, as Indigenous peoples, continue to transfer accord accurately with our meaning of truth (e.g., ontology, epistemology, value, and world view)? A Story It must have been September or October, 1996. My daughter was just a baby in a front pack, and we were walking at the Rieffel Wildfowl Refuge in Richmond, B.C. During our tour, the guide stopped and showed us two fields filled with white Snow Geese. As he explained, the geese filled both fields, one inside and one outside the refuge. But, he explained, on the day hunting season opened, every year, at the exact hour hunting season began, all of the geese would move to the field inside the refuge. The Snow Geese had learned to read human behavior. They had also developed intra-species orality that would allow them to move as one, in consensus. When survival is at stake, a specific function of orality (what I will explain as accord) is of paramount importance. Communication and Language We use language to communicate on a daily basis. Our languages are often taken to be like the air that we breathe-something taken for granted, normally invisible (unless there is something peculiar), and effortless-therefore, we do not even think twice about the function and meaning of language itself: What is language? What is communication? Who communicates? Are humans the only communicative animals? Are communication systems restricted to live beings? …
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".