Life stages and northern Algonquian women, 1930--1960: The elders remember
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is an investigation of how life stage roles and responsibilities of women were integral to the health and well-being of northern Algonquian peoples during the twentieth century. Theoretical underpinnings for the work come from Anishinaabek life stage "teachings," which stress that health and well-being are dependent on how well community members fulfill life stage roles and responsibilities. The thesis argues that knowledge about how these stages were experienced historically can help Indigenous peoples to decolonize and construct healthier futures. The content of the work is based on oral history with fourteen northern Algonquian elders from the prairies and Ontario, who shared stories about the girls and women of their childhood communities at mid-century (1930 - 1960). Chapter One introduces the thesis and secondary source material, which included historical and ethnographic literature about Algonquian peoples. Chapter Two covers some of the theoretical considerations involved in oral history and Indigenous historiography. Chapters Three to Six analyze life stages as follows: Conception to Walking; "Walking Out" to Puberty; Puberty to Grandmother Years; and Elder life experiences. The dissertation concludes with considering how Anishinaabek life stage theories fit within Indigenous historiography and how they apply to the experiences of northern Algonquian girls and women at mid century.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".