Nous avons besoin d’une nouvelle histoire : la marche et l’imagination wâhkôhtowin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous offrons ici une traduction de l’article anglais, originalement intitulée We Need a New Story: Walking and thewâhkôhtowin Imagination. Inspiré et guidé par le concept de sagesse nêhiyaw de wâhkôhtowin, cet article présente la marche comme une pratique de vie qui peut enseigner la relation de parenté et aider à reconceptualiser les relations entre les Autochtones et le Canada en fonction de modalités plus éthiques. Je soutiens qu'aujourd'hui, les relations entre les Autochtones et les Canadiens continuent d'être fortement influencées par les enseignements coloniaux, qui mettent l'accent sur le déni des relations. Les éducateurs au Canada aujourd'hui font face au défi scolaire important de parvenir à faciliter l'émergence d'un nouveau récit qui peut réparer les fractures coloniales héritées et donner de bonnes indications sur la façon dont les Peuples autochtones et les Canadiens peuvent vivre leurs rapports ensemble différemment. D'après mon expérience, l'émergence d'une nouvelle histoire peut être facilitée par la marche comme pratique de vie.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".