Erasure No More: Canada's First Nation's Resurgence of Land-Based Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resurgence is the 21st century revitalization of traditional practices and governance to create an alternative future for Indigenous communities as articulated by North American Indigenous scholars: Leanne Simpson, Glen Coulthard, Taiaike Alfred, and Jeff Corntassel. Theoretical works and findings of Resurgence were a response to the settler-colonial narrative of dispossession policies directed at the removal of Indigenous communities from their land. In response, Indigenous scholars have used Resurgence to showcase alternatives to protecting Indigenous land rights and cultural practices. This is being done through a national liberation and the rejuvenation of cultural values, practices, language, and art. This paper shows an array of Indigenous Resurgence land-based practices that have variations from traditional to more contemporary innovative examples of Resurgence. This is the beauty of Indigenous Resurgence, because it shows the power of the indigenous collective to adapt, readjust, and prevail in contemporary times. Not only this but it shows the strength within these communities that their cultural identity will not be erased.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".