MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924459895 · doi:10.3138/ctr.177.004

Rethinking the Practice and Performance of Indigenous Land Acknowledgement

2019· article· en· W2924459895 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcknowledgementIndigenousPerformative utteranceSociologyPoliticsRedressSovereigntyGender studiesMedia studiesPolitical scienceAestheticsLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, Dylan Robinson, Kanonhsyonne Janice C. Hill, Armand Garnet Ruffo, Selena Couture, and Lisa Cooke Ravensbergen consider the performative and political efficacies of land acknowledgement. The article is an edited transcription of a plenary presentation at the Canadian Association for Theatre Research that took place on 30 May 2018 at the Isabel Bader Centre for the Performing Arts Concert Hall in the city now called Kingston, in the province now known as Ontario. Each panellist was to think through the performance—the what it is we do—of acknowledgement by responding to a series of questions. Questions posed to the panellists included: Does the acknowledgement of Indigenous lands and waterways elide the acknowledgement of other forms of structural and epistemic violence within the specific contexts we work in as academics and artists? How might acknowledgement be aligned with a politics of recognition that is a continuation of settler colonial logics rather than a break from them? What must occur for acts of acknowledgement to transform into actions that effect Indigenous sovereignty? How might acknowledgement be ‘actioned’ differently by settler Canadians, ‘arrivants,’ immigrants, displaced peoples, and visitors? How can standardized forms of acknowledgement give way to context- and site-specific forms of redress?

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations56
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207