Beading as an Embodiment of Life: Understanding Indigenous Beadwork Through Felt Theory and an Indigenous Research Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project examines the significance of Métis beadwork as an embodiment of cultural identity and resurgence. My methodology includes autoethnography and storytelling to situate myself in my research and connect findings in the literature to my own experiences. I am beading a pair of moccasin vamps (also known as tops or tongues) as a part of my research, using Tiffany Dione Prete's (2019) theory of beadwork as a research paradigm. Jeff Corntassel's theory of acts of everyday resurgence, Dian Million's (2009) felt theory, and aspects of storywork by Jo-ann Archibald (2008). The findings of my research not only position Métis beadwork as a crucial factor in the resurgence of Métis culture and identity, but also as a way to understand knowledge transmission, resistance and resiliency, governance, and relationality. My initial interest in the topic, motivated by my own curiosity around Métis material culture as a young reconnecting Métis person, quickly developed into something much more significant. What I found were the threads that can help stitch back together symbolic Métis material culture and Métis epistemologies, ontologies, methodologies, and pedagogies, which have been fractured by colonization.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".