Bibliographic record
Abstract
Painted by Henry G. Glyde in 1951, the Alberta History mural has been a fixture in the University of Alberta’s Rutherford South Library Reading room for more than 70 years. In the last decade, it has come under scrutiny for its problematic representation of the province’s past, sparking public dialogue and a process of consultation to determine its future. This paper examines how the mural, as public art, contributes to a lived curriculum of settler colonialism at a time when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) asks that institutions “support, promote, and facilitate truth . . . [and demonstrate] a profound commitment to establishing new relationships embedded in mutual recognition and respect that will forge a brighter future” (p. 339). Drawing on understandings of public pedagogy, theories of settler geographical ignorance, ethical relationality and difficult knowledge, this paper questions the production of a settler colonial consciousness and its role in normalizing the settler experience while marginalizing, misrepresenting or making invisible the perspectives and experiences of Indigenous Peoples. By challenging dominant narratives of Canadian history that are part of the lived curriculum of place and public art, and by re-imagining them through the lens of ethical relationality, this paper aims to confront and disrupt colonial harm and settler colonial consciousness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 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".