Bibliographic record
Abstract
In R v Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada famously remarked that the incarceration of Indigenous people represents a "crisis." Since Gladue's release, the language of "crisis" has been used with frequency in Canadian legal discourse. In this article, I analyze how this language has shaped the broader legal understanding of Indigenous mass imprisonment. My focus is not on specific iterations or uses, but on the cumulative impact of the language of "crisis" over the last twenty years. I suggest that however well-meaning these representations may be, their cumulative impact is harmful. In the face of the relentless intensification of Indigenous mass imprisonment, the language of "crisis" has operated to subtly entrench the colonial structures it purports to disrupt. Urging a shift away from its use, I argue that the language of "crisis" is not only ill suited to address the problem, but is part of the problem. Résumé: Dans l'arrêt R. c. Gladue, la Cour suprême du Canada constate que l'incarcération des peuples autochtones représente une « crise ». Depuis la publication de l'arrêt Gladue, l'expression « crise » a été fréquemment utilisée dans le discours juridique canadien. Dans le présent article, j'analyse comment ce langage a façonné une compréhension juridique plus extensive de l'emprisonnement de masse des autochtones. Je ne me concentre pas sur des itérations ou des utilisations spécifiques, mais bien sur l'impact cumulatif du langage de « crise » au cours des vingt dernières années. Je suggère que, aussi bien intentionnées soientelles, ces représentations ont un effet cumulatif néfaste. Face à l'intensification incessante de l'emprisonnement de masse des autochtones, le langage de « crise » a opéré un enracinement subtil des structures coloniales qu'il prétend entraver. Exhortant à l'abandon de son utilisation, j'affirme que le langage de « crise » est non seulement mal adapté pour répondre à ce problème, mais plus encore qu'il fait partie dudit problème.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".