Our land or no land - A qualitative study of power and land disputes between Canada and Indigenous Mohawks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mohawks and Indigenous people of Canada have historically suffered substantial land concession against European settlers. As the settlers cemented their power over the territory that is now Canada, the Indigenous groups have been pushed to live upon increasingly less land, forced to concede both their cultures and the territories important to their development as a Native people. This study investigates the relationship between Indigenous Mohawks and the country of Canada to the background of the land dispute and violent clashes which occurred in Oka, Quebec in 1990. The thesis aims to uncover the ambiguous power dynamics that were at play by analyzing aspects of the case from a set of theoretical approaches. The goal is to address the national assertions of the Mohawk people as a potentially destabilizing factor to the power of the Canadian state. In this regard, the study argues that by analyzing the historical and discoursive factors of the events through a range of analytical concepts of power, a deeper understanding will be gained of the assertion of Mohawks as sovereign nations. The research concluded that, by possessing a strong and persistent contention to their ancestral territories, by demanding a sovereign nationhood, and by claiming the legitimacy of self-governance and law upon the territory, the Mohawk communities possessed relative power to resist the physical, political and social invasion by the Canadian nation. Their rebellion was not simply a temporary social movement, but also a nation contesting its existence on a historical identity.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".