Indigenous living traditions as institutionalized practices in urban Native organizations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In order to understand the complexity of the term Indigenous traditions from grassroots perspectives we propose the need to look at them as lived experiences, not frozen in time but responding to contemporary needs. Consequently we look at how, in Canadian urban centers, Indigenous traditions are living experiences that contribute to Indigenous identity revival. Indigenous cultures are strong and vibrant in vindicating their traditions and identity albeit, with new meanings and interpretations. Here we illustrate how Native organizations, through the work of their Indigenous leaders, Elders and key community members guide the process of institutionalizing Indigenous traditions in urban areas (specifically in Southern Ontario). This in turn, contributes to a greater extent, to understand Indigenous identity revival in urbanized contexts. By using the term Indigenous traditions we acknowledge the terminology employed by academia and some Native organizations in as much to refer to traditions and teachings practiced and learned as a lived experience. Our analysis is based from the fieldwork conducted by Manzano-Munguía from 2005 to 2008 in London, Ontario (see for details Manzano-Munguía, 2009). It included semi-structured interviews among and between Indigenous people residing in urban centers ( n = 10), as well as participant observation during different gatherings in urban Native organizations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it