The Power of Borders in Native American Literature: Leslie Marmon Silko's Almanac of the Dead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The historic 1999 declaration signed by the leaders of the National Congress of American Indians from the United States and the Assembly of First Nations from Canada identified areas of common concern, including: "Protecting and promoting the right of our citizens to move freely across the borders of Canada and the United States while retaining full recognition of their status as members of indigenous cultures."'State borders continue to be the locus of conflict between Native peoples and dominant societies internationally.The fragmentation that the nation-state imposes on indigenous nations and peoples is a result of conflicting constructions of space, culture, and identity.The dominant discourse, as Michael J. Shapiro argues,' has sought to take the legitimacy of the sovereignty of the nation-state for granted as a natural situation, even though the borders theniselves may shift and prove to be unstable.But the idea of the national state is itself unstable once "the construction of national stories that legitimate the state boundaries of inclusion and exclusion" are identified for what they are-"a primary normalizing strategy."3Matthew Coon Come, grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations in Canada, explained how borders have functioned to fragment Native nations in Canada: Actually, most Aboriginal peoples have been artificially split by the imposition of Provincial and various other boundaries across this land, whether in the M'est, the East, the Prairies or the North ....And where we were not split by boundaries, the provisions of the Indian Act have ~ ~-
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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".