The logic of settler accumulation in a landscape of perpetual vanishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Glacier National Park celebrated its one hundredth anniversary in 2010, a storm of uncertainty loomed on the horizon. The park's signature glaciers, which are vanishing at an astonishing rate, were the greatest source of anxiety. Scientists now predict that all the remaining glaciers will be gone by the year 2020. The intensity of the storm was also fed by the specter of the vanishing Indian, which haunted the centennial, provoking a different sort of (colonial) anxiety. One hundred years ago, the vanishing Indian, not the glacier, served as the park's icon. The specter ruptured a temporal border that had kept the story of yesterday's vanishing Indian separate from that of today's vanishing glacier. In this landscape of perpetual vanishing, this article will focus on the concept of primitive accumulation (or accumulation by dispossession). Of particular interest is how its conventional meaning within political economic theory is modified by settler-colonial studies and indigenous critical theory. Patrick Wolfe, for example, argues that settler colonialism – as “a complex social formation and as a continuity through time” – is “a structure rather than an event”. Like settler colonialism, accumulation by dispossession is also a structure, not an event. As an ongoing process, it cannot be relegated to a pre-capitalist past. The continuity of the vanishing logic in the Alberta/Montana borderlands sheds light on the structural dimensions, often intersecting, of settler colonialism and accumulation by dispossession. Moreover, it raises the question: Is it possible to identity a unique set of processes that we might call settler accumulation? In other words, does a distinct form of accumulation emerge from the dialectic between primitive accumulation and settler colonialism, which cannot be reduced to either of its constitutive elements?
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".