“We’re Still Here”: Teaching and Learning about Métis Women’s and Two-Spirit People’s Relationships with Land in Winnipeg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In conversation with five Métis two-spirit, transgender and cis heterosexual women educators, I explored ways of knowing, teaching and learning about Métis women and two-spirit people’s enduring relationships with land in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I inquired how an urban land-based education can (re)story Winnipeg as Métis land, and (re)centre Métis women’s and two-spirit people’s relationships with place. I employed a Métis-specific kitchen table methodology that honours the Métis visiting way (Gaudet, 2019) and positions the kitchen table as a site of queer Métis women’s organizing and resistance. Methods included a relational recruitment strategy, conversational interview method, holistic analysis (Saldana, 2016) of the transcripts in their entirety, and a relational, feminist analysis (Chu & Gilligan, 2019; Fowler, 2022; Paliadelis & Cruickshank, 2018; Woodcock, 2016) of excerpts. I found that Winnipeg is undoubtedly a Métis place, and that many Métis women are deeply rooted to land in the city. The Métis two-spirit, transgender and cis heterosexual women who participated in the study confidently relate to land through ancestral people and places, but sometimes expressed doubt, disconnection and a sense of uprootedness with respect to their own personal, lived relationships with land and place. Despite the ongoing impacts of urbanization, heteropatriarchy, a rigid religious education and upbringing, and a mainstream curriculum that harms Métis land-based epistemologies, some Métis women have maintained their own relationships with land and community in Winnipeg, and continue to enact those relationships in their daily lives. Tracing ancestral routes across Winnipeg while planting their own roots in urban land may help Métis learners foster a sense of belonging in the city.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".