Pyroepistemology along the Northern Shores of Lake Ontario: Reinterpreting the Hopewell Tradition and Mound-Builders Theory through Anishinaabeg Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically reevaluates the mound-builders theory and the Hopewell tradition (200 BCE–500 CE) along the northern shores of Lake Ontario by incorporating Anishinaabeg perspectives on burial mounds and death practices. Through case studies of the Serpent Mounds (300 BCE–1400 CE, Hiawatha First Nation, Ontario) and the Hasting Mounds site (500 CE, Norwood, Ontario), this paper employs the concept of pyroepistemology, as introduced by Paulette Steeves (2021), to challenge and decolonize established archaeological narratives. Pyroepistemology, which seeks to eradicate colonial ideologies to reveal Indigenous knowledge, is crucial for reinterpreting the Hopewell tradition, traditionally viewed through a eurocentric lens. This study integrates Anishinaabeg oral histories and cultural practices to provide a more holistic understanding of these sites, advocating for an inclusive and respectful archaeological approach that acknowledges Anishinaabeg cultural heritage and calls for educational reforms in Ontario.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".