MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344249705 · doi:10.1177/1532708616638693

Multicultural Feeling, Feminist Rage, Indigenous Refusal

2016· article· en· W2344249705 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jenny Burman

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Studies &#x2194 Critical Methodologies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMulticulturalismIndigenousGender studiesPoliticsNationalismSovereigntySociologyColonialismPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the persistence of figuring Canadian multiculturalism as a success story, in the face of growing international attention to the degradation of Indigenous life and sovereignty in Canada. It examines three issues: nationalist investments in and scholarly/activist critiques of multiculturalism; dehumanizing bodily and discursive violence directed at Indigenous women by way of government policies, interpersonal violence, and media narratives; and recent activist expressions of anti-settler colonial politics diffused through social media. Gender is central to the interrogation of difference-making in Canada; it is conspicuously absent in mainstream formulations of multiculturalism, grievously present in gender-based violence, and a key basis for resistance to settler colonialism. The article’s aim is to complement the growing body of writing that connects multiculturalism and the politics of recognition to dismissals of Indigenous claims to political sovereignty, cultural self-determination, and freedom from bodily harm. The connection is not paradoxical—It is correlational.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0320.095
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Studies &#x2194 Critical MethodologiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207