Bibliographic record
Abstract
The island of Newfoundland/Ktaqmkuk is the traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq and Beothuk people. However, this truth is rarely acknowledged in the official and popular stories of the island as place. In Newfoundland, dominant stories construct a particular sense of the island as place, which often work to displace and ignore the histories and experiences of Indigenous Newfoundlanders, especially the large population of Mi’kmaq people living on the island. They also displace and ignore the role that settler Newfoundlanders play in perpetuating the colonisation of Indigenous peoples on the island. This article asks how including the story of settler colonialism in dominant understandings of colonialism can unsettle the official and popular stories of Newfoundland as place and homogenous characterisations of Newfoundland identity in the island’s cultural memory. It explores points of intersection between these two understandings of colonialism in three historical periods, including Newfoundland’s time as a British colony, the process of joining Canada and the post-Confederation period. Without including settler colonialism, vital understandings of these events and their consequences for Indigenous peoples are rendered invisible. The framework of comparative colonialisms creates a starting place for building authentic and accountable solidarities between Indigenous and settler Newfoundlanders.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".