Between concept and context: reading Gilles Deleuze and Leanne Simpson in their in/commensurabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After centuries of ignoring and discounting Indigenous epistemologies, geographers and other scholars rooted in Western intellectual traditions have recently displayed a new curiosity about the insights offered by Indigenous intellectual traditions. In this article, we reflect on the ethical challenges that accompany reading Indigenous philosophy as scholars trained primarily in the Western tradition. Reading a set of texts by Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg writer Leanne Betasamosake Simpson and French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, we argue that reading practices can serve as either enactments or refusals of colonial relationships, and provide an account of the development of reading practices that seek to find meaning in the in/commensurablity of these texts, rather than by seeking only similarities or differences. Thus, we advocate for a political approach to reading Indigenous philosophy that respects the sovereignty of the text.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".