Self-Determination and Indigenous Women: Increasing Legitimacy through Inclusion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous advocates have been pushing for the recognition of the right to self-determination. These claims to exercise the right to self-determination have been met with resistance by some Indigenous women and organizations because colonization was a gendered enterprise and, thus, had differential impacts on Indigenous women. This article highlights the differential impacts of colonization on Indigenous women and the reactions from Indigenous organizations, both which contribute to Indigenous women’s concerns on whether they will benefit from expressions of self-determination. The article then provides an overview of the right to self-determination, explaining its genesis and its relevance to Indigenous peoples in Canada. Finally, the article concludes by presenting factors for assessing legitimacy as a framework to promote the inclusion of Indigenous women in expressions of self-determination. The article asserts that including Indigenous women in the process and in addressing Indigenous women’s particular political, social, cultural, and economic development is the only way for decolonization to fully occur.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it