Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capability to enact devastation that defied borders of the nation-state begged larger ethical and existential questions of nuclear power. Iterations of these moral questions found a place at the epicentre of the anti-nuclear movement in Canada from the 1950s-1990s. The South Pacific People’s Foundation (SPPF) was established in 1975 in Victoria, British Columbia in response to the growing presence of nuclear violence in the Pacific world. It propagated tenets of Indigenous sovereignty, solidarity, anti-colonialism, and peace within the Pacific. While anti-nuclear activism was already well established in Canada, it was limited in its focus on the potential threat that nuclear power posed to Canadians and neglected to confront Canadian participation in nuclear testing throughout the world. In 1982, the SPPF began publishing the journal Tok Blong (talk belongs). This paper argues that the SPPF brought an acutely Pacific perspective to the anti-nuclear movement in Canada as demonstrated through their work in Tok Blong. Particular attention is given to the SPPF’s coverage of Canadian shelling of the sacred Hawaiian island, Kaho’olawe, and representations of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement. The paper is situated within post-colonial scholarship on Kaho’olawe as well as secondary literature on the anti-nuclear movement within Canada drawing particular parallels with the movement to make Canada a Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone. The paper will disrupt the associations of youth, whiteness, and Canadian passivity that often get assigned to anti-nuclear activism in Canada and counterculture more broadly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".