MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789247558 · doi:10.3138/topia.38.103

Using Indigenous Feminist Land Ethics to Queer the Korean Missionary Position in Canada

2017· article· en· W2789247558 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ruthann Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousQueerGender studiesSociologyColonialismMulticulturalismCapitalismReflexivityDiasporaContext (archaeology)Political scienceAnthropologyHistoryPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay reflects on my practice of building solidarity with Indigenous peoples in a research project on diasporic Korean Christian missionary involvement with Indigenous communities in British Columbia. I incorporate an Indigenous feminist land ethic of relationality to queer my investigation of Korean missionary relationships with Indigenous peoples in Canada. I bring queer, woman of colour and Indigenous feminist perspectives into conversation with Asian Canadian studies to examine how the relationships between Korean diasporic and Indigenous subjects are structured by the normative logics of settler colonialism and late global capitalism. Korean Canadians occupy a conflicted position as marginalized citizens in a settler nation with global economic aspirations. Yet, in the context of neoliberal multiculturalism, they can also be complicit in white settler colonial and capitalist projects, which encourage Koreans to perform and be recognized as respectable, upwardly mobile citizens. By theorizing personal memoir and lived experience, my aim is to present a self-reflexive research methodology and explore how Indigenous feminist perspectives offer non-normative epistemologies that can transform institutions in radically queer ways.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0460.049
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207