“Stories are in our bones!” From mispon to Ācimowin: A conversation with Janine Windolph, in memory of Trudy Stewart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we talk-write this essay-conversation, we combine our positionality as Atikamekw and Woodland Cree storyteller (Janine Windolph) and settler Canadian (Sheila Petty), our expertise in screen media production, curation and research, and our dedication to linguistic, cultural, and representational sovereignty in Indigenous art and knowledge production. In Indigenous research practices and approaches to curatorial research and methods, it is important to begin by introducing ourselves. Through this “conversational method of Indigenous inquiry” (Christian 43), we intend to probe the history of two Indigenous focused film festivals in Saskatchewan—mispon (2006–2018) and Ācimowin (2024–)—and discover how they embrace a methodology of story work, hospitality, and story-gifting to build cultural and representational sovereignty into their curatorial practices and presentation. In concert with this, we will also discuss Janine Windolph’s films, showcased at both festivals, Trudy Stewart’s films and screen work, and
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".