"How to approach collaborations?" A Freirian journey honouring Cree relationships, skills, and values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents research carried out in the Cree Nation of Wemindji (James Bay), Northern Quebec. Wemindji, not unlike other northern Indigenous communities, is living through a time of great social change. At stake are questions of Cree identity, customs, traditions, values and knowledge as the community attempts to shed the tethers of colonization and navigate new pathways for the 21st century. Two questions have guided and shaped this research: (i) how can collaborations between Indigenous and non-native research partners be improved?; and (ii) how does the changing social context in which the community finds itself affect the customary artistic practices of a group of women involved in the Wemindji Traditional Skills Group (WTSG) and how their work is valued? Participatory Action Research (PAR), derived from Freirian liberatory theory, was used to explore these questions because of its capacity to foster forms of collaboration that would allow the construction of reciprocal social relations that privilege Indigenous research methodologies, epistemologies, and agendas. In this respect PAR was informed by locally generated initiatives on research collaborations, particularly The Wemindji Iiyiyiuch Core Values project.The thesis demonstrates how evidence of the group's artistic contributions and research processes are contributing to local and regional questions informing the practice of Cree artistic heritage. Using the examples of smoke-tanned moose hide and spruce bark basketry, the thesis asserts that the traditional practices involved in these processes are not only an expression of self-determination in the face of ongoing colonial pressures, but key to WTSG educational planning and development as a local institution concerned with the preservation and advancement of living traditions serving Cree youth and future generations.
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 | 0.033 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".