Dirna arrun “We Hold It”: Rematriating Junba with Archival Collections and Living Knowledge in the Kimberley, Northwest Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2009–2010, practioner-custodians from Wanjina-Wunggurr First Nations in the Kimberley region of northwestern Australia have drawn upon archival materials relating to the multimodal performance-storytelling form Junba to renourish the practice and strengthen social and emotional well-being of young people in their communities. Numerous dance-songs that have not been performed for many years, some as long ago as the 1930s, others the 1960s, have re-entered the local canon. What has unfolded is a process of rematriating Junba (a process of reclaiming authority and agency over how Junba is held) from the archives of collecting institutions to the dynamic archives of knowledge in people and Country: dirna arrun (in Ungarinyin, “we hold it”). This article provides a written version of a lecture-recital presented and prepared by practitioner-custodians of Junba, O’Connor, Divilli, and Charles, together with collaborating ethnomusicologist, Treloyn, who are collectively engaged in this process of rematriation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".