The Over-Incarceration of Indigenous Women: A Look at Meeting Needs in Community Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous women make up a disproportionate percentage of incarcerated women in Canada. The effects of settler-colonialism are ever present, as these women experience marginalized lives. The violence they experience is twofold – in their everyday lives and in prison. This study is grounded in penal abolitionism and explores how the needs of Indigenous women in trouble are being met within the community – keeping them out of contact with the criminal justice system. I look at community organizations within Edmonton through a content analysis of website and Facebook data, analyzing the discourse for emerging themes related to identifying and attending to social and economic needs. While the organizations are virtuous in their intent, I find that they are an extension of and strengthen the values of settler-colonialism in assimilative ways. I draw on Foucault’s work on ‘docile bodies’ and G. Coulthard’s work on the ‘liberal politics of recognition’ to situate my analysis that Indigenous women are being disciplined and produced through incarceration and community organizations, thus increasing their utility in society. Community organizations that attend to the needs of Indigenous women have been designed and formulated within a society that is predicated on settler-colonialism. In order for Indigenous women to have their needs met, the Indigenous community must be a self-determining sovereign body. Discipline: Sociology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Amanda Nelund
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".