Reconciling the archive: creating space for Indigenous structured systems of remembrance in Canadian archives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous ways of knowing and situating history have been historically neglected by archival institutions over the vast tradition of archives in Canada. Embodied expressions of history such as orality, storytelling and ceremony hold unique information imbedded within the performative exchanges which needs to be recognized as authentic and valid. As archives are used to promote our collective conceptions of heritage and identity, their failure to incorporate embodied expressions into their institutional frameworks has contributed to the dismissal of Indigenous histories on a broader scale by the Canadian public. In recent years, new methods of resituating archival records regarding Indigenous peoples have been explored as a means of addressing our country’s colonial pasts. These methods utilize partnerships between archival institutions and engagement with Indigenous source communities to enhance knowledge of archival collections. Conversely, national and international frameworks have recognized the importance of expressions such as oral traditions, oral histories and ceremony to Indigenous communities as valid forms of history in need of protection. While these frameworks are used by archival institutions, often cited as guiding principles in their work with Indigenous peoples, archives in general have yet to accept the embodied expression as an archival record. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report defines reconciliation as an act of mutual respect between two groups. I suggest that reconciliation within archival work can therefore only be achieved if archives acknowledge and incorporate Indigenous embodied records into their institutional frameworks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".