Analyse antiraciste du rapport au territoire, à l’autre et à l’écriture dans Aimititau ! Parlons-nous !
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aimititau ! Parlons-nous ! (2008) propose un projet de correspondances littéraires entre écrivains/es autochtones et non autochtones créant ainsi « une nouvelle langue appartenant au territoire de l’amitié et de la création ». Cet article considère l’échange épistolaire en lien avec le territoire physique et le contexte social. L’auteure explore certaines des tensions entre les discours qui promeuvent un partage d’humanité, au-delà des différences, et les conditions matérielles des injustices qui se perpétuent. Elle propose l’analyse de deux correspondances, celles entre Denise Brassard et Rita Mestokosho, et entre Nahka Bertrand et Jean Désy, qui mettent de l’avant un lieu commun d’où établir le dialogue, soit le lien avec la nature et le métissage. Couture-Grondin suggère alors que les discours interculturels doivent tenir compte de la matérialité du racisme, qui continue d’affecter nos relations, et de la matérialité de l’écriture, qui permet de reconnaître la positionalité des discours et la particularité des traditions intellectuelles et de création autochtones. Aimititau ! Parlons-nous ! (2008) proposes a project of correspondences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal writers from Quebec that creates “a new language which belongs to the territory of friendship and creativity”. This paper considers the relationship between the epistolary genre, the physical territory, and the social context. The author explores some of the tensions between discourses that promote the idea of sharing humanity, beyond differences, and the material conditions of ongoing injustices. She analyzes two correspondences, between Denise Brassard and Rita Mestokosho, and between Nahka Bertrand and Jean Désy, which uses a common ground to establish their dialogue, either the relation to nature or the definition of a common identity. Couture-Grondin argues that intercultural discourses must take into account the materiality of racism, which continues to affect current relationships, and the materiality of writing, in a way that acknowledges the positionality of discourses and the particularity of Indigenous intellectual and creative traditions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".