Sustaining Anishinaabe’aadziwin Through River Relations: A case study of Deshkan Ziibiing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impacts of colonialism on Indigenous people throughout Canada has left long lasting effects. Despite the government of Canada’s attempts to diminish Indigenous ways of being, these cultural ways of life are still practiced today. The objective of this study was to understand how Anishinaabe’aadziwin (Anishinaabe ways of being) is sustained through a community’s nurturance of river-relations. This was accomplished through a case study of Deshkan Ziibiing (Chippewas of the Thames First Nation) and investigating how community river-relations maintain and strengthen Anishinaabe’aadziwin. Employing Joann Archibalds storywork methodology and the Seven Grandfather teachings as an analytical framework, community interviews were conducted to understand past and present relationships with the river. From the interviews, I found that most teachings are all thriving when it comes to the community’s relationship with the river; however, through the lens of Debwewin (Truth) and Gwekwaadziwin (Honesty) the community could seek opportunities to strengthen river-relations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".