MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904321466 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2018.9.3.7

I Could Turn You to Stone: Indigenous Blockades in an Age of Climate Change

2018· article· en· W2904321466 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Patrick C. Canning

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAllianceIndigenous rightsMythologyColonialismClimate changePolitical scienceAction (physics)Political economyLawSociologyEnvironmental ethicsHuman rightsHistoryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous Peoples in Canada and around the world have, for years, used blockades and direct action when alternative means of asserting their rights have failed. The Secwépemc First Nation of British Columbia, Canada, has a myth where a character, Sk’elép, encounters strangers who try to “transform” him, but fail. He tells them he could turn them to stone, but he will not. This myth is used as a lens to reflect, from a settler perspective, on the potential for future Indigenous-led blockades, which could reach the point of mass economic shutdowns, in response to a lack of action on both Indigenous rights and climate change. Up until now, the policy of most colonial nations has been to deal with Indigenous blockades by force or at best with localised solutions. This policy will not work regarding climate change. This article proposes that the Western world faces a stark choice: truly embrace “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC), or else face the possibility of large scale shutdowns from a growing alliance of Indigenous Peoples, environmentalists, and concerned citizens.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207