Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues for the creation of an Indigenous collections policy at the University of Toronto Libraries. Such a policy would address the preservation and conservation of Indigenous materials in a manner that respects culturally specific views of care and integrity. Whereas Western approaches to “preservation” typically focus on minimizing the physical degradation of an object, Indigenous Knowledge systems are frequently rooted in different norms regarding access, care, and knowledge transmission. I identify three key arguments to present to the University of Toronto (U of T) for developing an Indigenous collections policy: (a) the preservation of Indigenous materials is an ethical imperative; (b) there is scholarly consensus on the importance of collections policies to the decolonization of libraries; and (c) given its global prestige, vast research holdings, and presence on traditional Indigenous lands, U of T is ideally positioned to lead the way for other academic libraries in establishing Indigenous collections policies.
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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".