Julie Burelle, <i>Encounters on Contested Lands. Indigenous Performances of Sovereignty and Nationhood in Québec</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Encounters on Contested Lands joins an ongoing conversation around the challenges and possibilities of decolonization from the perspective of Performance Studies, and represents an important contribution to decolonial thought and practice across the Americas. Specifically, it broadens this conversation by offering a much-needed investigation, in English, of decolonization and performance read in relation to Quebecois claims of sovereignty. The project reveals Quebec as a place of competing sovereignties, focusing on contemporary encounters between Indigenous peoples and what Burelle calls the French Québécois de souche—French-speaking white descendants of early French settlers, who were colonized by the British and later by Anglo Canadians. Burelle pushes against a long-time narrative of Quebec as a colonized minority, and makes visible the white possessive logic that connects English and French Canadian colonial projects, highlighting how Quebec’s history of suffering and practices of selective remembering have been used to assert a Québécois de souche nationalist project. Through her analysis of a range of cultural and political performances, Burelle exposes the discursive and performative strategies of dispossession of Indigenous peoples that have made this project possible, arguing throughout that Quebec’s imagined community is still unable “to accommodate (let alone comprehend) the concept of Indigenous sovereignty” (16). As a settler scholar, Burelle does not shy away from her positionality as Québécoise de souche, and offers a range of strategies for settler scholars to engage productively with their own accountability. Burelle’s introduction explicitly outlines her choices in nomenclature and citation, acknowledging the politics of naming and the importance of positioning theory in relation to the places and peoples discussed.
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 | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".