MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992897212 · doi:10.3138/cjwl.26.1.23

Race Matters: Sexism, Indigenous Sovereignty, and <i>McIvor</i>

2014· article· en· W1992897212 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin J. Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et Droit · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousInjusticeTransformative learningGender studiesRace (biology)SociologyColonialismPolitical scienceArgument (complex analysis)RacismEconomic JusticeDominance (genetics)LawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following Patricia Monture, I argue in this article that the law is not a transformative arbiter of justice but, rather, is actively invested in the recovery and recuperation of colonial dominance and the affirmation of settler sovereignty. I illustrate this argument through a critical reading of McIvor v The Registrar, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, a progressive case that challenged sexism in the criteria established by the federal government for recognizing “Indianness.” This case had the potential to correct the history of sex discrimination in the Indian Act and to reconcile the matter of racialized injustice as it is realized through, and inseparable from, sexism, but it ultimately failed. In fact, the case (re-)told a raceless story of sexism as well as an original Eurocentric fiction that separates “woman” from “Indian.” This case thus prevented us from seeing the inequality of treatment that indigenous women and their descendants—indeed, all status Indians—face as racialized peoples. Canadian law, I argue, continues as it has over the last four decades to mobilize “Indianness” as a strategy to dispossess and undermine the sovereignty of indigenous peoples.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et DroitSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207