Two‐eyed‐seeing/<i>Etuaptmumk</i> in the colonial archive: Reflections on participatory archival research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it