History of National Memberships in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter analyzes the national histories of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States in light of their policies affecting the national membership of indigenous peoples. Although national histories are sometimes vigorously disputed, as we shall see, there is ample agreement about the thrust of government policies affecting indigenous peoples and the motivations and ideas that supported those policies. These histories are essential to my argument in two ways. First, governments have apologized for (or have been asked to apologize for) specific acts and for the larger policies of which these acts were a part. Second, the past terms of national membership have, to a great degree, shaped both the ways in which indigenous groups have mobilized and the claims they have made. The discussion that follows is organized according to the three dimensions of national membership – legal, political, and affective – and analyzes the actions of state actors who have and continue to decide, although not without resistance from or sometime in consultation with indigenous peoples, the extent and meaning of indigenous membership. Apologies politics should be understood as part of this ongoing dynamic of negotiation, where state officials and indigenous groups have each sought to structure and restructure the terms of membership, usually in diametrically opposed ways. State officials built nation-states, at the expense of substantial indigenous political, economic, and social autonomy. Indigenous peoples, in turn, have fought to preserve and regain some measure of autonomy to shape their collective futures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".