MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210311374 · doi:10.1353/aca.2021.0020

A Thought-Exercise in Decolonization: Reflections from a Mi'kmaw Historian Revisiting the Acadiensis Readers

2021· article· en· W4210311374 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mercedes Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiensis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipDecolonizationContext (archaeology)Reading (process)HistoryAction (physics)SociologyAestheticsMedia studiesPoliticsArtPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Thought-Exercise in Decolonization:Reflections from a Mi'kmaw Historian Revisiting the Acadiensis Readers Mercedes Peters (bio) THIS COMMENTARY IS ALMOST A YEAR-AND-A-HALF in the making. It began with an email inquiry about whether or not I would be interested in doing a Mi'kmaw historian's reading of a set of readers Acadiensis published in the early 1990s. I am currently training as a historian in an era where more scholars than ever are considering what it means to do scholarship that breaks down the oppressive structures that have shaped the academy for generations before us, and, at the same time, my lived experiences as a Mi'kmaw woman shape my work. So, in the original plan, I was going to write a commentary on what The Atlantic Region to Confederation and The Atlantic Provinces in Confederation looked like through the eyes of a historian using a decolonizing lens.1 Before I get into what I mean by decolonization in the context of scholarly writing, I think it is important to explain why this forum piece took over a year to produce because, in an almost serendipitous way, it was the extra time I spent thinking about this commentary that allowed it to morph into what it eventually became. This is still, in part, a commentary on the Acadiensis readers I was initially asked to review, but more than that it is an attempt to make transparent the kinds of collaborative thought-work and action that must go into decolonizing scholarship in general and in the Atlantic Region specifically (Mi'kma'ki/Mi'gma'gi, Nitassinan, Nunatsiavut, Peskotomuhkati, and Wəlastəkwihkok). This is by no means a definitive or prescriptive discussion about how we could decolonize writing histories in and about this region, nor is it a piece that simply asks for more representation of Indigenous peoples in our field. Instead, in the little space I do have, I want to start a conversation by asking questions [End Page 115] of those who do history – or any scholarship, for that matter – in and about the "Atlantic Region" however one might define it.2 Decolonization, despite a prefix that denotes a closure of, or a moving away from, is a remarkably generative process that necessitates a collaborative effort of learning, unlearning, and thinking beyond the colonial boundaries our discipline has set for us. To demonstrate this, at least on a smaller scale, I have set up this forum piece as a kind of collaboration. At the core of my commentary sits three conversations I had with three brilliant historians doing work on the Atlantic Region: Harvey Amani Whitfield, Natasha Simon, and Thomas Peace. Each conversation ended up centering around a key theme that got me thinking not as much about the original Acadiensis readers as I did about the possibilities inherent in a new generation of readers. What follows is an overview of how these conversations shaped my own thinking about how colonialism has impacted Atlantic Region historiographical projects, and what it would look like to embark on a rewriting of this region's history in a way that refuses the colonial boundaries that have shaped it. The pandemic's impact What the isolation that came with COVID-19 offered was a seemingly endless time to think, something that is not always beneficial to someone trying to fit their thoughts into a three-to-four-thousand-word piece. At the same time as we reckoned with the inequalities in our societies that the pandemic fed upon and made worse, this year also presented an inescapable barrage of colonial violence that made focusing and existing as an Indigenous woman in the academy exhausting beyond words. This experience is not isolated to 2020 and 2021, but there was something about the lack of interaction with our usual support networks that made it particularly grueling. When I began writing this back in October of 2020, I watched live from my home in Vancouver as RCMP officers, DFO officials, and settler fishers launched attacks on Mi'kmaw lobster fishers from Sipekne'katik First Nation for exercising treaty rights. I took [End Page 116] off for home, hoping to be...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiensisSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207