From new paternalism to new imaginings of possibilities in Australia, Canada and Aotearoa/New Zealand: Indigenous rights and recognition and the state in the neoliberal age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The election of Evo Morales as the first indigenous President of Bolivia in \n2005 is widely credited to the Cochamba Water War (Spronk 2007: 8). \nThe Cochamba Water War progressed from an indigenous movement \nand a specific issue to the creation of an indigenous political party and \nelection of the first indigenous President. The Bolivian water war, the \nPuebla Panama Plan in Mexico, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline in Canada \n(Altamirano‐Jiménez 2004) and Māori resistance to the neoliberal agenda \nfrom 1984 onwards (Bargh 2007: 26) inspired much theorising about \nindigenous people successfully contesting neoliberalism (AltamiranoJiménez 2004, Bargh 2007, Spronk 2007: 8, Postero 2007). Bargh \nand others, for example, documented not only ‘overt Māori resistance \nto neoliberal policies, but also more subtle stories of activities, which \nThe neoliberal state, recognition and indigenous rights \nimplicitly challenge neoliberal practices and assumptions by their support \nfor other ways of living’ (Bargh 2007: 1). Scholars make visible the \npersistence of the colonial in the concrete and material conditions of \neveryday neoliberal governance and life (Howard-Wagner & Kelly 2011: \n103). As Bargh (2007), Altamirano-Jiménez (2013), Howard-Wagner \n(2010b, 2015) and others note, indigenous categorisations of neoliberal \npractices as a form of colonisation relate to a concern that neoliberalism in \nits multiple forms poses a threat to indigenous ways of life. This scholarship \nalso critically reflects on the reshaping of the relationship between the \nstate and indigenous peoples under neoliberalism (Altamirano-Jiménez \n2004, Bargh 2007, Howard-Wagner 2009). For example, it draws \nattention to the increasing intervention in the lives of indigenous peoples \n(Howard-Wagner 2007, 2009, 2010a, 2010b) and the dispossession of \nindigenous people through privatisation (Wolfe 2006, Howard-Wagner \n2012, Altamirano-Jiménez 2013, Coulthard 2014). It does not, however, \npreclude agency, resistance and decolonisation. \nInterpretive micro-studies about indigenous peoples’ engagement with \nneoliberalism provide particular value. They tell us about actually existing \nneoliberalism in the context of intervention in the everyday lives of \nindigenous peoples, contests over rights, contests over policy and the \ncomplex decisions indigenous people are making about how to protect \ntheir rights and navigate diverse economies involving neoliberal policies \nand practices.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.107 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".