Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the government of Canada compelled Library and Archives Canada to better facilitate Indigenous archival access. Yet, Indigenous peoples continue to face a variety of barriers to archival access and document retrieval. This paper argues that there are still many problems of Indigenous access to the archive and that the best remedy to these problems is to fundamentally change long-standing colonial ideas of record keeping. For true access and collaboration to begin, archivists must be enabled to act beyond traditional archival structures and policies. The paper begins by outlining the archival responses to the TRC’s report, addressing Indigenous rights to knowledge and continuing barriers to archival access, and offering suggestions to mitigate issues of access. In addition, this paper advocates that Indigenous considerations be reworked in existing archives and that Indigenous community archives be better supported.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".