Perspectives and Expressions of Anishinabek Nationhood and Education Sovereignty from Rural Northern Ontario - Mnidoo Mnising (Manitoulin Island)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines perspectives on Anishinabek Nation education sovereignty specific to Mnidoo Mnising, or Manitoulin Island, located in rural Northern Ontario. As an Indigenous (Anishinabek) researcher who lives and works on Mnidoo Mnising in postsecondary Indigenous education, I interviewed 18 Anishinabek participants categorized as Elders, Community Leaders, Students/Alumni and Scholars. My focus was on participant views of the meaning of education sovereignty, their shared vision and outlook for the future, and recognition of influencers of change guided by the advice of Smith (2012) and Tuck (2009) to centre Indigenous research relevancy and community purpose. I chose Indigenous research methods with Indigenous sovereignty and Tribal Critical Race theory as my theoretical framework, with postcolonialism providing an essential background of my participant perspectives and data analysis using Clarke’s (2015) situational analysis. Findings reveal interdependence between Nation and education sovereignty, and a commitment to spirituality embedded in Mnidoo Mnising’s Indigenous language, Anishinabemowin. I examine the strength and relationships between Anishinabemowin conscientization, or Aabiziishmoomgad Anishinaabemowin, and theorize a contemporary implicit praxis that expands on existing Indigenous literature described as ‘two-eyed seeing’. Finally, I theorize how the concept of ‘two-eyed doing’ influences a community’s theory of change in education and Nation sovereignty. In this research, key “Indian Policy Markers” provide an essential context in which research participants examine the past, present, and future of the Anishinabek Nation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".