Guiding reconciliation? Approaches to colonialism among canoe trip guides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last 30 years has seen a re-affirmation of the importance of canoeing for Indigenous communities throughout North America. These practices put an urgency to recent re-evaluations of the role of the canoe as a national symbol. Given these changes, those who guide canoe trips professionally are working through a unique landscape. This paper examines how those guides are navigating the relationship between canoeing and colonialism. Based on semi-structured interviews with guides working in Canada, the research found that awareness of colonialism and reconciliation has impacted the practices of guides, especially around the recognition of territory the trips travelled through, the relationship with Indigenous communities, the framing of wilderness, and the learning they hoped to pass on. The paper concludes by considering how recreational backcountry travel by settler organizations can engage with current discussions of reconciliation and decolonization, specifically around the discourse of wilderness and the affirmation of Indigenous jurisdiction.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".