“Smudging, drumming and the like do not a nation make”: Temporal Liminality and Delegitimization of Indigenous Protest in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the threat that Indigenous protest poses to Canada. However, it examines this potential for threat at an ontological level rather than a material level. In adopting a liminality framework, the article traces the capacity for Indigenous protest to menace and undermine Canada’s national identity. More specifically, it analyzes the ways in which editorial and commentary sections of Canada’s national newspapers represented protest and political activity associated with the Idle No More movement. Its findings demonstrate how these prominent social actors in Canada respond to the destabilizing presence of the Indigenous liminar by working to resolve its ambiguity in ways that protect and entrench dominant narratives of Canadian national identity. Acknowledging the role that liminality plays in structuring news media depictions of Indigenous peoples provides insight into how social actors in Canada interpret and respond to Indigenous protest. It demonstrates how such actors are able to exploit popular conceptions of indigeneity to reinforce the ongoing social dynamics working to produce and reproduce dominant narratives of Canadian identity. Moreover, a liminality framework is also valuable in demonstrating the role the news media play in delegitimizing Indigenous political advocacy and perpetuating fears relating to social disorder and violence in Canada.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".