Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores public podium addresses involving identified Indigenous speakers within the context of eco‐Indigenous alliances. In Montreal, the field site, Indigenous podium talk takes place with impressive frequency. These kinds of reflexive, discursive productions are part of a larger trend in staging ethnically reflexive voices in public discourse. Indigenous podium talks serve as important sites for Indigenous communities to engage and seek beneficial relationships from various Canadian publics. Yet, insofar as speakers speak from an identified cultural identity, perennial quandaries around the presentation of the “other” persist. In this article, I examine Indigenous podium talk as a discourse genre through which Indigenous identities and social issues are made recognizable and brought to the attention of non‐Indigenous publics. Through an in‐depth analysis of a single speaking event, focusing on reported speech and pronomial deixis, the interactional demands and possibilities of podium presentations are investigated and related to both the genre and the tar sands dispute that has brought the participants together. Analysis shows the fraught footings available and the sheer delicacy through which speaker and collective voices are presented and aligned to audience and issue, as speakers speak both as and for Indigenous people within the terms of podium talk.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".