Owning History: Indigenous Histories and Records Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(From the Introduction:) As anyone who has set out to do research with Indigenous records knows, this research, already difficult just by the nature of the topic itself, can be even more challenging when researchers must negotiate labyrinths of confusing access requirements across a range of different organizations and archives. For academic Indigenous historical researchers and Indigenous families and communities alike, locating and accessing critical Indigenous records can be extraordinarily difficult and frustrating. Over the course of our work with the Manitoba Indigenous Tuberculosis History Project (MITHP), we’ve faced challenges and delays in accessing Indigenous records held in colonial archives, and in disseminating the information we have found when we have been able to gain access. As other researchers can attest, these challenges and delays can be exhausting, and have drawn on resources that could have been otherwise used toward actual research and knowledge creation. In addition, the ways in which access is managed deeply impacts the questions researchers can ask and the histories we can tell. During the Owning History conference, we discussed the challenges of undertaking Indigenous archival research and explored how these experiences might inspire concrete changes in records access that could lead us toward a more respectful and honourable future.... We hope that the presentations shared, and the dialogues they inspire, will support research and researchers, stimulate new ways of engaging in and approaching this kind of research, inform strategies, and deepen our understanding of the many ways records access impacted and continues to impact Indigenous individuals, families, and communities and the pursuit of justice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".