Grassy Narrows Blockade: Reworking Relationships between Anishnabe and Non-Indigenous Activists at the Grassroots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The case example of Grassy Narrows argues that the localized experiences and discourses between Grassy Narrows First Nation ‘blockaders’ and non-Indigenous ‘activists’ reflected constrained and emancipatory practices of transforming various forms of asymmetrical power between them. Both a process and an outcome of negotiated understandings, collaboration and trust delineated by solidarity, the case of the Grassy Narrows First Nation (GNFN) blockade offered examples of grassroots practices for wider social change. In this case study, it was the negotiation from a marginalized position too often accorded the ontologies and epistemologies of one group—in this case, GNFN (Anishnabe peoples)—, and repositioning (privileging) it as the centre point of practice and leadership vis-à-vis another group (non-Indigenous activists). The case example asked what could be learned from a grassroots situation where differently situated parties have different privileges/status at the structural (macro) level but choose to attempt to renegotiate these at the local level. It suggested that transforming of larger social relations of power began at the local level through inverting/disabling unequal past practices and that in doing so, offered a counter point to established relations of power.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".