Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hundreds of years before European contact, my Ojibwe ancestors were told of future events by their spiritual leaders who warned of unimaginable changes that would take place with the coming of a "light-skinned people."These prophecies described the struggles that Anishinabe 1 people would face to keep our culture and ourselves alive.They foretold that our way of life would be nearly lost but would eventually be regained.Elders today explain that this was a prediction of both European colonization and the Native American cultural resurgence that started in the 1970s.As you will fi nd in reading this book, community-based participatory research (CBPR) has a fundamental role to play in this resurgence.As both an Anishinabe woman and an archaeologist, I set out to understand how archaeology might benefi t from engaging CBPR.I started this research inspired by another central prophecy and teaching from Ojibwe oral history as related by Eddie Benton-Banai (1979), Grand Chief of the Three Fires Midewiwin Society: The teaching tells of a time when the Anishinabek, along with others globally, will face a choice between two paths.One path is made of scorched grass, signifying short-term success but eventual destruction.The other path is a lush trail that leads to a future of lasting peace.The teaching states that the second path is one of P R E F A C E 1.The Anishinabek are the indigenous people from what is now the midwestern region of the United States and Canada.The Anishinabe peoples include Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi communities who share a cultural identity and are related through kinship and language.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.560 | 0.343 |
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".