Sovereignty and Indigenous Resistance in the Modern World: The Case of Athabascan Oil Sands Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas have long been threatened by unsustainable development in their traditional territories and are today on the forefronts of resistance against harmful development projects. Underlying some of the efforts of indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada is the notion that Tribes or First Nations might somehow make development good for indigenous people by exercising “sovereignty.” Sovereignty and development, however, are imposed regimes. Settler states and corporations have been the ones to define and exercise sovereignty to direct development. Wresting labor and natural resources from indigenous peoples and other exploited populations has been essential to capitalist development. Transformative politics is impossible when indigenous peoples conform to values and systems of governance that have long been the means for their exploitation. Aspiring to “legitimize” their control over lands and resources has precluded indigenous autonomy and anti-systemic struggle. Competition between communities and indigenous leaders for advantages and opportunities promised by developers undermines pan-indigenous organizing and divides communities. This chapter presents an overview of the exploitation of oil sands bitumen that threatens the peoples and ecosystems of the Athabasca River basin in the Canadian province of Alberta. It sets forth some of the responses of Algonquin and Athabascan communities and First Nations organizations. The objectives are to illustrate that sovereignty is a key component of a losing game for indigenous peoples and to inspire further consideration of how indigenous resistance might be constructed to provide greater protection to peoples and ecosystems being sacrificed to capitalist development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".