Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the concept of citizenship in relation to certain Aboriginal women, whose membership in First Nations is subject to Canadian federal legislation and First Nations constitutions and membership codes. In the struggle for decolonization, Aboriginal peoples use the language of rights - rights to self-determination, and claims of fundamental human rights. The state has injected its limited policy of ''self-government'' into this conversation, characterized by the federal government's preference for delegating administrative powers to Indian Act bands. Since the 1985 Indian Act revisions, bands have been able to control their membership. Where prior to 1985 the federal government implemented sexist, racist legislation determining band membership, now some bands have racist, sexist membership codes. In both cases, the full citizenship capacity of affected Aboriginal women, in either the colonial state or in First Nations, is impaired. The bands in question resist criticism by invoking rights claims and traditional practices; the federal government washes its hands in deference to self-government. The rights claims of affected women are scarcely acknowledged, much less addressed. Meanwhile, their citizenship in both dominant and Aboriginal communities is negotiated with the realities of colonialism, racism and sexism. Their experience demonstrates the limitations of citizenship theory and of Canadian citizenship guarantees.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.067 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".