The Prison Garden as Artistic Boundary Object: Fostering Food Sovereignty and Social Citizenship for Indigenous People in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For Indigenous peoples in BC food sovereignty has and continues to be disrupted by the ongoing impacts of colonialism, resulting in not only food insecurity but disproportionate rates of economic vulnerability, social disruption, and barriers to education and employment; these social determinants of health are also correlated with persistent criminal justice inequities, including over-incarceration. The growing, tending, harvesting and preparing of food and the activities that surround foodways are rooted in cultural contexts, historical backdrops and socio-economic forces; all of which are intersected by colonialism and its impacts on citizenship and sovereignty for Aboriginal peoples. Using a garden program in a federal prison in BC as a case study, we outline the ways in which food production and imperial notions of productive citizenship impact Aboriginal wellbeing within and outside of prison contexts, and how the garden - as an aesthetic and sensory boundary object – allows for critical discussions of foodways, rights, and sovereignty across the continuing boundaries of colonial Canada. The garden program - wherein incarcerated Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men grow organic produce that is subsequently donated to a First Nations community in BC – provides an opportunity to explore the ways colonial ideals of productive citizenship have negatively impacted foodways and meanings for Aboriginal peoples. Our analysis also details how notions of social citizenship offer a novel way of understanding food sovereignty as a form of therapeutic art and craft. The garden, existing at the boundary of colonial agriculture, ancestral Aboriginal foodways and contemporary food rights, provides a nexus for conversations on art, food, wellbeing, rights and resurgence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".