Re-inscribing Indigeneity in The Secret Garden and Peter Pan: Cherie Dimaline’s Into the Bright Open and Cynthia Leitich Smith’s Sisters of the Neversea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By retelling Frances Hodgson Burnett’s The Secret Garden and James Matthew Barrie’s Peter Pan from Indigenous perspectives, Cherie Dimaline and Cynthia Leitich Smith address the importance of young Indigenous readers seeing themselves represented. Using decolonial narrative strategies, these Indigenous-authored texts suggest alternative ways of relationship building and celebrate queerness and sisterhood. The two Edwardian novels with their textual instabilities, which reflect the questioning of normative ideas about childhood and adolescence at the turn of the twentieth century, provide Dimaline and Smith with ample opportunity to present counter images to racist stereotypes demonstrating the transformative power of Indigenous storytelling. In the process, the two authors adopt Uma Krishnaswami’s idea of “prisms” and Debbie Reese’s notion of “curtains” to reframe the two classic texts in their novels Into the Bright Open and Sisters of the Neversea thus re-inscribing Indigeneity into story.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".