The Politics of Intragroup Difference: First Nations' Women and the<i>Sawridge</i>Dispute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Theories that emphasize shared group identities to justify and delineate the rights of minority cultural groups are problematic because they obscure the differences that exist among group members. Disputes involving cultural communities are more clearly analyzed using a politics of intragroup difference that relies on three central precepts, namely, a relational conception of difference, attention to relations of power and concern for individual autonomy. A framework based on this foundation is better able to identify the significance of socially constructed differences and better equipped to adjudicate disputes where intragroup differences are raised. Résumé.Les théories qui mettent l'accent sur les identités de groupe partagées pour définir et justifier les droits des groupes culturels minoritaires sont problématiques car elles obscurcissent les différences qui existent entre les membres du groupe. Les conflits impliquant des communautés culturelles s'analysent plus clairement à l'aide de méthodes qui présument l'existence de différences à l'intérieur d'un même groupe et sont fondées sur trois préceptes fondamentaux, notamment une conception relationnelle des différences, la prise en compte des relations de pouvoir et la protection de l'autonomie individuelle. Un modèle basé sur ce fondement est mieux apte à cerner l'importance des différences définies par la société et à arbitrer des conflits à l'occasion desquels des différences sont soulevées à l'intérieur d'un même groupe.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".