Two‐eyed‐seeing/<i>Etuaptmumk</i> in the colonial archive: Reflections on participatory archival research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Due to their origins and purpose, institutional archives present us with a set of limits when we seek to use them in struggles against colonialism. Here we explore to what extent we can negotiate those limits and practice participatory historical research. In particular, we explore how our project's direction by Indigenous methodology, a Two‐Eyed Seeing approach, influenced our relationship with the colonial archive. The research reported on in this paper involved establishing a historical narrative from Canadian federal and provincial colonial archives. This narrative was used in conjunction with oral histories from and interviews with Elders and Knowledge‐holders of the Mi'kmaq Nation to document the emergence of social assistance policy as a central aspect of colonial processes. Our historical research was, thus, explicitly tied to understanding the Mi'kmaw struggle for sovereignty in the colonial present. Here we sketch out aspects of our attempt to navigate between the colonial past and colonial present using a participatory approach to the historical geographies of Indigenous–settler relations.
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 | 0.055 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".