“You have harmed us”: Stories of violence, narratives of hope among the Port Gamble S'Klallam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2015, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) released a formal report containing hundreds of testimonies documenting the physical, psychological, and epistemological violence inflicted on Indigenous youth in federally funded and church‐run residential schools. The TRC is part of a growing body of academic and publicly oriented scholarship that takes a documentary approach to reckoning with historical trauma in North America. By focusing on harm and loss, this sort of damage‐centered research unintentionally reinforces unidimensional narratives of Indigenous history and personhood. As Eve Tuck (2009) argues, a desire‐based approach grounded in notions of complex personhood offers an alternative framework for grappling with the legacy of settler‐colonial violence. In this article, I draw on Tuck's approach to interpret a body of object‐based interviews with Port Gamble S'Klallam community members. During these interviews, objects and historic photographs shared with community members elicited stories of interpersonal and structural violence around their experiences with education. Importantly, these materials also evoked stories of refusal, cultural resiliency, and hope. In revealing the complexity of Indigenous experiences with Western‐style education, object‐based interviews present archaeologists with a holistic method for documenting Indigenous histories in ways that challenge damage‐based narratives.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".