Re(claiming) Indigenous Identity Within Canada's Prison System: Indigenous Identity and Indigenous-Specific Prison Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to explore how Indigenous men understand Indigenous identity, how they experience Indigenous-specific programming while in prison, and how these experiences intersect. Through a number of qualitative semi-structured interviews, Indigenous men described their experiences of participating in Indigenous-specific programming while incarcerated; the data is then understood within an historical context of colonialism and assimilation policy. The key findings of these interviews highlight the importance and necessity of Indigenous-specific prison programming to incarcerated Indigenous men, as well as the healing potential of Indigenous culture and spirituality. However, systemic barriers in provincial prison systems prevent Indigenous men from being able to access such programming. This thesis also finds that Canada’s history of colonialism has affected the Indigenous identities of many of the research participants. Some spoke about culture and language loss as a direct result of colonization (the residential school system, the sixties-scoop, and the child welfare system) while others spoke about the indirect outcomes of colonization, such as marginalization and fragmented identities. Based on these findings the main conclusion is that while Canada is attempting to appear post-colonial in light of talks of renewed relationships and reconciliation, colonization of Indigenous men continues within the Canadian prison system. As incarcerated Indigenous men are denied access to culture and spirituality the prison itself is serving to further disconnect Indigenous people from being Indigenous and fostering the erasure of Indigenous identity from the Canadian settler state as a means of continuing what can be termed as the ‘civilizing’ project.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".