Archaeological Interpretive Design for Wanuskewin Heritage Park From The Indigenous Perspective: "astam api: Stories of Indigenous Archaeology"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis was to design an archaeological interpretive program for Wanuskewin Heritage Park from the Indigenous perspective, ninêhiyawiskwêwin. The final interpretive program titled, “âstam api: Stories of Indigenous Archaeology” further supports Wanuskewin as a centre of excellence by exploring the extensive archaeological record. This interpretive program was designed to meet Grade 4 Science and Grade 6 Social Studies Saskatchewan Curriculum utilizing two-eyed seeing which balances both Western and Indigenous knowledge systems. Program topics include: Indigenous Archaeology, the Opimihaw Creek Valley as a Refuge, Community and Stewardship, The Wanuskewin Story, Archaeology as a Storyteller, and Revitalization: Where do we go from here? The research question: “How does archaeology with Indigenous ways of knowing impact reconciliation education?” provided direction when investigating the history of colonialism within archaeology and education, and its lasting impacts on Indigenous peoples for generations. The introduction of culturally relevant curriculum and archaeological programming can address the education gap affecting Indigenous youth and holds space for Indigenous knowledge and practice in academic spaces. The stories held within the archaeological record of the Opimihaw Creek Valley, and the establishment of Wanuskewin Heritage Park, highlight how archaeologists are storytellers, protectors of knowledge, and need to be active members in their local communities – especially regarding truth and reconciliation. Decolonizing academic spaces, the use of Indigenous methodology, and miyo-ohpikihâwasowin prove how archaeology can serve as an honorary witness to Indigenous peoples’ sacred relationship to land since time immemorial.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".