Indigenous temporal priority and the (de)legitimization of the Canadian state: A book review of On Being Here to Stay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Michael Asch, in On Being Here to Stay: Treaty and Aboriginal Rights in Canada , devotes over 200 pages to the question of “what, beyond the fact that we [settlers] have the numbers and the power to insist on it, authorizes our being here to stay” (p. 3)? In the context of Canada, decolonization almost inevitably engages with the complexities of treaty relationships and the issue of temporal priority. Asch’s contribution serves as both a primer for legislative aspects of these issues, as well as a critical engagement with the debates on contested sovereignty. Asch draws on Indigenous knowledge and scholarship, Western political thought, and his research in Indigenous communities to provide a creative and engaging proposal for altering current settler colonial relations in Canada. In this review I will both present Asch’s main arguments as accurately as possible while also challenging some points through a decolonizing critique inspired by Tuck and Yang’s (2012) ethics of incommensurability. Michael Asch. (2014). On being here to stay: Treaty and Aboriginal rights in Canada . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 217 pp. $24.95
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, 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".