"We are Stories, Not Labels:" Anishinaabekweg Childrearing Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations mothers are subject to various colonization attempts, including labelling as deviant parents, both in historical and contemporary contexts. Through the application of a micro-lens to one Anishinaabeg community, known as Opwaaganisiniing or the Red Rock Indian Band, in Northern Ontario, this research 1) highlights how Euro-Canadian labels, both past and present, have impacted childrearing and 2) uncovers resistant and persistent Anishinaabe mothering principles and practices. Decolonizing Praxis and Indigenous Methodology supplement the western theoretical approach of Labelling Theory. Labelling Theory has never been applied to Indigenous communities; however, it can be useful to describe how dominant societal labels can be damaging (causing shame and stigma) yet inversely empowering (developing resistance) for marginalized peoples. An archival study looked at historical government and religious documents to determine the historical labels applied to people in the community, and 14 Indigenous female parents were recruited from members of the Red Rock Indian Band to determine the contemporary labels that exist today. A conversational methods approach was used to elicit labels and stories from the parents. Indigenous narrative methods were undertaken to draw out meaning from the stories and anecdotes told by the parents. Despite the persistence of historical labels, it was found that contemporary parents use kinship and reclamation to resist these labels.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".