Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to understand how riverain Sudanese stand by to genocide targeting peoples of Sudan’s peripheries, and how non-Indigenous Canadians stand by to genocide targeting Indigenous peoples in Canada. Influenced by Indigenous relational approaches to research, this study was designed collaboratively with scholars and activists targeted by genocide in both contexts. Employing constructivist grounded theory methods (Charmaz, 2008) I have conducted in-depth interviews with 44 riverain Sudanese and 18 non-Indigenous Canadians complicit in genocide. Genocides such as these destroy social figurations (Elias, 1978), the value-laden networks of relationships that define us. Reflecting this I uncovered two grounded theories of standing by to genocide, one for riverain Sudanese and one for non-Indigenous Canadians, with four relational dimensions in common: 1. relationships with place and their failure to connect across vast distances with those targeted by genocide; 2. relationships within their communities, and the colonial nature of relations between those complicit and those targeted by genocide; 3. a mesh of colonial ideas originating in Britain — capitalism, liberal values, the nation state, “modern” bureaucratized institutions, formal education, and race — that legitimize genocidal relationships in both contexts; and 4. Resulting from these relational networks a habitus (Bourdieu, 1990) that predisposes rather than prevents riverain Sudanese and non-Indigenous Canadians from standing up. Kinship relations in Sudan facilitate the colonizing riverain figuration monopolizing power at the centre, relegating peoples targeted by genocide to the peripheries. Riverain Sudanese both connect with and “other” peoples targeted in ways that facilitate doing nothing about genocide. Non-Indigenous Canadians have instead engineered themselves in a binary relationship, distant from, in contrast, and superior to Indigenous peoples in Canada. Their standing by is facilitated by the few and often poor relationships they have with Indigenous people and their denial of racism and domination. In both contexts the disposition of standing by can be explained along dimensions of (in)action, knowledge, feeling, and motivation. This theory suggests that even modest changes could transform these networks of genocidal relationships in ways that would facilitate riverain Sudanese and non-Indigenous Canadians standing up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".