Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are unequivocally in favor of much, much, more space opening up for Aboriginal peoples and Indigenous ways of knowing and being in academic (and myriad other) spaces. We are worried, however, about a current lack of published critical engagement with policies and practices that appear, superficially, to support inclusivity and diversity of Indigenous peoples in academic institutions. We argue that, principally because such policies are inherently designed to serve settler-colonial subjects and powers, many inclusivity and diversity policies instead leave fundamentally unchanged an ongoing colonial relationship with Indigenous peoples, their epistemologies, and their ontologies. Indeed, we contend that individual Aboriginal peoples are suffering at deeply embodied levels as universities and other institutions rush to demonstrate well-intended “decolonizing” agendas. Drawing from examples in British Columbia, this paper provides a critical intervention into a rapidly ascending, and deeply institutionalized, dominance of policies and practices that claim to promote and open spaces for Indigenous peoples and perspectives within academic institutions. We draw from critical race theorists, including Sara Ahmed, and in our conclusion offer suggestions that aim to destabilize and trouble the good intentions of neo-colonial policies.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".