Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The book blends discussions of settler colonialism, policing and surveillance, with a detailed exposé of current security practices that targets Indigenous movements. Using the Access to Information Act, the book offers a unique view into the extensive networks of policing and security agencies. While some light has been shed on the surveillance of social movements in Canada, the book shows how policing agencies have been cataloguing Indigenous land defenders and other opponents of extractive capitalism, while also demonstrating how the norms of settler colonialism structure the ways in which police regard Indigenous movements as national security threats. The book examines four prominent case studies: the long-standing conflict involving the Algonquins of Barriere Lake; the struggle against the Northern Gateway Pipeline; the Idle No More movement; and the anti-fracking protests surrounding the Elsipogtog First Nation. Through these case studies, we offer a vivid demonstration of how policing agencies and the criminal justice system are central actors in maintaining settler colonialism. The book raises critical questions regarding the expansion of the security apparatus, the normalization of police surveillance targeting social movements, the relationship between police and energy corporations, and threats to civil liberties and collective action in an era of extractive capitalism and hyper surveillance."...
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".