MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771085580 · doi:10.11157/sites-vol14iss1id362

Sovereignty, Indigeneity, and Biopower: The Carceral Trajectories of Canada's Forced Removals of Indigenous Children and the Contemporary Prison System

2017· article· en· W2771085580 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David B. MacDonald, Jacqueline Gillis

Bibliographic record

VenueSites a journal of social anthropology and cultural studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsIndigenousImmigration detentionPrisonSovereigntyImprisonmentPoliticsState (computer science)CriminologyPolitical scienceCriminal justiceSociologyLawHuman rightsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For seven generations, the Canadian settler state sought to take Indigenous children from their parents and home communities, to a network of residential schools, where the goal of the state and the four main Christians churches was to destroy all that was Indigenous in these children. A key purpose was to make Indigenous peoples, alongside their sovereign rights to land, language, spirituality, and governance disappear. As this system wound down, forcible transfer shifted to forcing Indigenous children into foster and institutional “care”, a process known as the “60s scoop”. These forms of child incarceration have a link to extremely high rates of Indigenous imprisonment in Canada’s settler colonial justice system. In this article we deploy a modified Foucauldian understanding of carceral politics to explore the history and intent behind the IRS system, the 60s scoop, and the prison system 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0480.043
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSites a journal of social anthropology and cultural studiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207