2015 Alaska Native Studies Conference Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptual Place to Unveil TruthWhat constitutes a "place" for a People?Who should be considered the "experts" regarding such a place?For many tribes, a critical spiritual companion -such as the horse -would have helped to constitute their understanding of "place, " both geographically and conceptually.At the time of first contact, the dominant culture considered the horse to be the most valuable animal to mankind.In keeping with their Euro-centric paradigm, history was written to perpetuate the myth that the conquistadors introduced the horse to the Americas and to the Native Peoples.However, the oral history, cultural traditions, and traditional ecological knowledge of many of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas tell a very different story.Contrary to dominant-cultural claims, this story shows that the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas had a highly evolved relationship with the horse, which predated the arrival of Columbus.Despite this -and despite recent Western scientific findings to the contrary -most history books, textbooks, and scientific equine articles continue to perpetuate the dominant-cultural claim.In this session I will discuss the way in which concepts of place are being used -and can be used -to validate Native knowledge, the way in which scientific testing of geographic "place" can be used to deconstruct Euro-centric myth, and the way in which the colonizing culture used the paradigm associated with "their place" to put themselves in a position of dominance.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".