Re-Imagining the Centre: Indigenous and Black Futures in Peel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We believe in a future where Black (African and Caribbean) and Indigenous (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) lives not only matter but thrive. One of the founding principles of the Hearts + Minds project is that Indigenous and Black peoples have deep roots that are sometimes glossed over, denied, and suppressed. We believe flourishing Indigenous and Black futures are entangled and inevitable and that community organizations (sometimes called non-profit organizations and social services) can play a special role in making space for Black and Indigenous connections and solidarities. We captured some of this thinking in our knowledge round-up. By fortifying and building connections between the many vibrant Indigenous and Black communities, we can expand community infrastructure and radical relationalities rooted in decolonial ways of knowing, being, and doing. New practices -and even new worlds -can emerge by reimagining who is at the centre of our work. In a world of hustle culture and unbridled individualism, we believe if Black and Indigenous connections are more nourished and more visible, Indigenous sovereignty and Black liberation will be made more possible. We appreciate how Indigenous sovereignty and Black liberation are big ideas that often don’t appear in community organizations’ strategic plans and that they are often strapped and stretched. We also know that big transformative ideas often get traction in community organizations because of their ability to harness human connection. Amidst this enthusiasm for more intentional Indigenous and Black connections in community organizations, it also feels important to observe the many important benefits of separating Indigenous and Black-specific programming in non-profit spaces; we also want these necessary programs to thrive and be well-funded.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".