Sexual Violence against Indigenous Women: Policies, Human Rights and the Myth of Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses issues regarding the definition of sexual violence in the context of Canada’s development discourse in the Third World vis-à-vis the domestic experiences of Indigenous women. Despite the fact that sexual violence is often defined as rape or unwanted sexual contact, the author argues that Indigenous female victims of sexual violence are strongly influenced by other systems of oppression. Systems like the coloniality of power, a term coined by Anibal Quijano, the coloniality of gender, a term best explored in the works of Maria Lugones, capitalism, heteropatriarchy and racism, among others, should be considered when discussing women of colour’s experiences of sexual violence. Hence, the notion of sexual violence purely as rape further marginalizes women of colour, including Indigenous women. Through the notion of intersectionality (Crenshaw 1991), this article aims to produce change towards redefining sexual violence in a way that better reflects the experiences of women of colour, while challenging systemic oppression. KEYWORDS: Sexual violence, Indigenous women, Development, Policy, Intersectionality, Coloniality
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".