Idle No More and Fourth World Social Movements in the New Millennium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idle No More (INM) has emerged as the most significant fourth world social movement of the twenty-first century so far. Responding to draconian and regressive legislation affecting Canadian First Nations' sovereignty, INM was quickly embraced as a movement for all fourth world and Indigenous peoples. This essay examines some of INM's inflections as a fourth world movement, looking at both its resemblances to and differences from earlier Indigenous social movements, and focusing on the United States. Even though INM emerged as a protest movement specific to attacks against Canadian First Nations' peoples, its concerns mirror the concerns of Indigenous peoples globally. But confusing media messaging has consistently misconstrued the self-determination demands in fourth world social movements since the civil rights era, more recently conflating them with environmentalism. Modeling the life cycle of a social movement, the earlier Red Power movement in the United States is seen as having become institutionalized, albeit within contested conceptions of self-determination. Since the passage of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, Indigenous peoples have a new protection framework to draw from, and the article examines how UNDRIP is being deployed by fourth world peoples, by INM, and in other local contexts, identifying its possibilities and shortcomings.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 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 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".