What's in a Name? the Politics of Labelling and Native Identity Constructions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract / Resume This paper analyzes how Native identities are (re-)constructed and (re-) affirmed through the use and circulation of (ethnic) labels. Labelling is a political act since labels include and exclude. Using the term 'First Nation' to describe traditionally clan and family oriented societies is one attempt of First Nations people to negotiate their way into the Canadian (political) consciousness. Since legal policies such as the Indian Act still fragment the Native population, the construction of a homogeneous national identity, e.g. through collective labels, such as 'First Nations' or 'Aboriginal/Native people', is one tool to resist outside domination and to empower Aboriginal people. Especially so when Euro-Canadian discourses frequently ignore expressed preferences and continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes. L'article analyse comment les identites autochtones sont (re)construites et (re)affirmees en raison de l'utilisation et de la diffusion d'etiquettes (ethniques). L'etiquetage est un acte politique, parce que les etiquettes incluent et excluent. Le recours a l'expression « Premiere nation » pour decrire des societes traditionnellement axees sur la famille et le clan est une tentative des peuples autochtones d'etabli leur presence dans la conscience (politique) canadienne. Etant donne que des politiques juridiques telles que la Loi sur les Indiens fragmentent toujours la population autochtone, la creation d'une identite nationale homogene en adoptant des etiquettes collectives telles que « Premieres nations » et « peuples autochtones » est un outil de resistance a la domination exterieure et d'habilitation des peuples autochtones. Cela est particulierement vrai lorsque les discours euro-canadiens ignorent frequemment les preferences exprimees des Autochtones et continuent de perpetuer des stereotypes negatifs. Introduction In this paper I will look at how Native people are defined and classified in Canadian society and in turn how they define themselves, i.e. I will discuss the issue of labelling. Emancipation from state-imposed names and labels such as the misnomer 'Indian'1 is one aspect of the general trend by Aboriginal people to rid themselves of outside domination. Labelling has real-world-consequences as the term 'Indian' is not value-free but rather negatively connoted and these connotations continue to shape both the direction of federal policy and popular prejudices towards the Aboriginal population in Canada. How people refer to themselves, or are referred to by others, shape not only their own perception but also other people's view of who they are. Negative labels (and implications) can disempower groups through the creation of potent negative stereotypes and can thus be a powerful means of exercising social control and a tool to manipulate identities. My interpretations are based on the assumption that reality and thus identity are discursively constructed. The constructed and controlled identities of individuals and groups of people are neither fixed nor 'natural' but rather a discursive process. The implications of the historically constructed meanings of the label 'Indian' need to be examined in terms of the process of identity formation as well as in connection with the names and labels that Aboriginal people in Canada choose to identify themselves in the public sphere today. Collective terms such as 'First Nations,' 'Native people,' and 'Aboriginal people' are a specific response to historical and contemporary political, economic and social problems and solutions. Overall, the conscious choice of these labels for self-identification and the rejection of imposed terminology are fundamental to the construction and affirmation of political and social identities. The Image of the 'Indian' RUSTY: The girl doesn't know I exist. I don't know if it's because I'm Indian or because she thinks I'm a flake. I'm not sure which is worse. KEESIC: [Looking puzzled. …
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".