Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous cultural activism that articulates around land rights and resource extraction is highly visible and long-standing in the unceded First Nations territories of British Columbia, Canada. Focusing on contemporary First Nations art – a form of cultural production that is often framed as a national resource and deployed to manage settler−indigenous relations – this article considers how settler−indigenous negotiations around territory find analogies in the cultural realm, as the language and even the practice of resource extraction overlap with a cultural, bureaucratic sphere: that of arts management in Canada. Proceeding from an examination of this system of arts management as a settler colonial form of governance tied to preservation and liberal notions of industrious social uplift, this article asserts both the generativity of this system and its links to extractive forms of territoriality – a territoriality that is shown to necessitate an expansive scale of analysis that cuts across boundaries imposed by the settler state. This generativity is explored further through an analysis of recent work by three contemporary Aboriginal artists – Suzanne Morrissette, Sonny Assu, and Luke Parnell –that takes up the forms and limits of knowledge and affect that this system of governance affords, via particular materialities and connections to cultural property. Their work is also shown to address the stakes of articulating cultural futures amidst a chrono-politics of ‘the contemporary’. Throughout, the assertion is made that such work be productively considered as an articulation of critical indigeneity and forms of sovereignty that are unsettling to the proprietary premises of resource regimes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.159 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".