Carceral Recognition and the Colonial Present at the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glen Coulthard’s 2014 book, Red Skin, White Masks is a much needed critique of the Canadian state’s increasing use of colonial recognition politics. I suggest that Coulthard’s approach is also well-attuned to interrogate current forms of prison reform in Canada. At stake is the possibility that unchecked recognition-based policies in Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) mandate – such as the utilization of ‘traditional healing’ in penal programming and the construction of prisons designed solely for Indigenous inmates –undermine the needs of Indigenous people in prison, while propagating settler colonialism through the often invisible mechanisms of the prison system. By analyzing the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge federal prison for Indigenous women, in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, I posit the emergence of a carceral recognition politics in Canadian prisons: a strategy whereby the penal system parades its willingness to accommodate Indigenous difference in order to reconcile Indigenous peoples with the authority of the State – often through the implementation of colonial teleologies towards a supposedly non-colonial present – while simultaneously developing a durable and comprehensive prison system for the more effective incarceration of federally sentenced Indigenous women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".