Anishinaabewaajimodaa sa: re-siting our selves home through narrative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the processes of discursive erasure, denial, and displacement of Namegosibii Anishinaabe historical presence on and connection to the Namegosibiing Trout Lake homelands as their heritage. Four major themes that emerge from the narratives of eight Namegosibiing community member participants clearly articulate Anishinaabe identity. These are Anishinaabemowin, Anishinaabewaadiziwin, wemitigoozhii-aadiziwin, and the noopimakamig aki boreal traditional territories. Participants’ dadibaajimowin narrative explains how the ingression of wemitigoozhi European (descended) settlers and the forces of wemitigoozhii-aadiziwin colonialism affected the ability of Namegosibii Anishinaabeg to maintain ancestral practices. Spanning several generational groups, these dadibaajimowin narratives demonstrate the need to revitalize Anishinaabe knowledge about how the aanikoobidaaganag ancestors expressed self-identity through life in the homeland territories. A critical Indigenous methodological component of this research is the extensive use of Anishinaabemowin throughout the text. Four sources of archival material, the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) records, treaty annuity pay lists (1876-1897, 1910), Canada’s 1901census, and the Butikofer Papers (2009), provide historical information about names, dates, and events that is not always a part of the Anishinaabe dadibaajimowin identity narrative. With the need for written documentation as supporting evidence, this thesis provides the kind of information that clearly demonstrates the Namegosibii Anishinaabe people’s claim to their history, identity, and inherent entitlement to the care, use, and occupation of the Namegosibiing Trout Lake homelands.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".