Revisiting Histories of Legal Assimilation, Racialized Injustice, and the Future of Indian Status in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the history of injustice surrounding the 1985 Indian Act amendments. Demographers suggest these amendments will lead eventually to the legal assimilation of Status Indians in Canada (Clatworthy, 2003a, 2005). These predictions present governments with a number of issues involving citizenship and Aboriginal identity. The future of reserve-based lands also requires attention by governments, especially if the Indian Act is contributing to the extinction of the Registered Indian population who are entitled to live on them. I wish to reflect on matters of citizenship and Aboriginal identity in this paper as well as the history of “involuntary enfranchisement” as this relates to Status Indians and Canadian Indian policy. I hope to invigorate the thinking toward histories of policy-based enfranchisement, racialized injustice, and gender-based exclusion. My discussion also draws from my qualitative research concerning issues of Indian status, the accommodation of Indian policy, and the accessibility of legal knowledge in Status Indian communities (Cannon, 2005). This research is ongoing, but in this paper I focus on a series of interviews I conducted between February and March of 2006. During this time, I spoke with ten individuals in Saskatchewan and Ontario who are registered as Status Indians under Canada’s Indian Act. Their views reflect a diversity of experiences based on age, gender, spirituality, and political orientation. They suggest that a series of knowledges and attitudes exist in Canada about Indian status. This paper is an exploration of these views using qualitative methodology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.070 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".