MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941684247 · doi:10.29173/psur109

Settler Colonialism and the Contemporary Coerced Sterilizations of Indigenous Women

2019· article· en· W2941684247 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ravia Kaur Dhaliwal

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismIndigenousContext (archaeology)Gender studiesSociologyEthnologyPolitical scienceCriminologyHistoryLawArchaeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the context of settler colonialism, this paper investigates the contemporary coerced sterilizations of Indigenous Women in Canada. By going through the history of coercive sterilizations in Canada, and then delving into the efforts in light of these supposedly historical coerced sterilizations, of culturally safe care in hospitals in Canada. This paper goes on to investigate the case of M.L.R.P., who was coercively sterilized in 2008. Lastly, this paper relates to Audre Lorde's work on the "master's tools" to the activism put forth around the case of indigenous women's coercive sterilizations highlighting again, the settler colonial contexts of these cases.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality StudiesFrench-language works237,207