MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194101421 · doi:10.1353/ail.2021.0005

Deborah Miranda, Natalie Diaz, Tommy Pico, and Metaphors of Representation

2021· article· en· W3194101421 on OpenAlex
Colleen G. Eils

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in American Indian Literatures · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousIdiotGray (unit)Representation (politics)SociologyState (computer science)Media studiesHistoryLawPoliticsArt historyArtPolitical scienceMedicineLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deborah Miranda, Natalie Diaz, Tommy Pico, and Metaphors of Representation Colleen G. Eils (bio) In the spring of 2018, two Mohawk brothers, seventeen-year-old Lloyd Skanahwati Gray and nineteen-year-old Thomas Kanewakeron Gray, joined a campus tour at Colorado State University. According to news reports, a woman on the tour called campus police officers on the teens, reporting them as suspicious and “creepy.” Police arrived, removed the brothers from the group, and subjected them to questioning before determining that they had done nothing wrong. Close attention to the woman’s police report reveals it was not only the teens’ presence on the tour that she found upsetting, but their quiet withholding of the information she demanded. According to reporter Mary Hudetz (Apsaalooké/Crow), the woman was immediately suspicious of the teens: “‘Their behavior is just really odd,’ she said from the Colorado State University campus. ‘They won’t give their names. . . . They just really stand out.’ The teens’ quiet disposition and dark clothing were unnerving, the caller told the dispatcher. Campus police responded by pulling them from the tour, patting them down and asking why they didn’t ‘cooperate’ when others asked them questions” (Hudetz; ellipses in original). The disproportionate force with which the teens’ measured privacy was met is not new to Indigenous youths in North America, but demonstrated for national audiences the ways in which compulsory visibility, or non-Indigenous expectations of access to Indigenous—in this case, Mohawk—bodies and stories, is part of the US’s and Canada’s colonial projects. Expectations of access to Indigenous lives are, perhaps paradoxically, part of larger colonial processes of historical erasure of Indigenous experiences and knowledges. Sometimes these erasure attempts happen through forcible destruction, for example through boarding schools, adoption policies, and genocide; in other cases, attempts take the form [End Page 82] of overwriting narratives and imposing interpretation on Indigenous lives. Writer Terese Mailhot (Seabird Island First Nation) describes the bind at the heart of colonial narrative projects: “No matter what we write, white people can turn our stories into weapons, an excuse to be paternalistic. If we depict ourselves as educated and self-sufficient, they might advance the narrative that our tragedies are long past, that we should dust ourselves off and move on” (Mailhot). She continues, “No matter what we do, we’re still Indian, and often we don’t get to speak for ourselves” (Mailhot). Billy Ray Belcourt (Driftpile Cree) explains the human cost of having to disrupt stereotypes to avoid objectification and to be recognized as fully human: “In narratives that hinge on proving our humanness, Indigenous people sit stilled in the role of the described. As the described, our words are pit against us” (Belcourt). Indigenous narratives come with the risk of effacement: readers, as Mailhot and Belcourt argue, can and do overwrite Indigenous presence with the stories they are looking for.1 Refusing readers access to narratives would be understandable in the face of overwhelming perils of representation, yet as the Gray brothers’ experience illustrates, silence is hardly a safer option for Indigenous people; it, too, can be weaponized in metaphorical and literal ways. Indigenous writers—and individuals—face a representational bind in which both Indigenous silence and narrative can be overwritten and used against them, often with material effects. And yet, Indigenous literature, storytelling, and self-representation remain vibrant. Further, Indigenous storytelling thrives even against centuries of physical and epistemological violence and determined efforts at archival erasure and exclusion; recovery projects, among other efforts, gather what’s present and note what’s absent, gleaning what they can from just underneath the colonial narratives written on the surface of both. Doing so requires varied, creative critical methodologies, tailored for and by the range of storytellers, contexts, histories, and projects that constitute American Indian literature and storytelling. Personal and communal memoirs rooted in tremendous historical recovery work, such as Deborah Miranda’s (Esselen/Chumash) Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir (2013), navigate both archival erasure and contemporary representational politics. In her discussion of “queer Indigenous writing as critical methodology,” Lisa Tatonetti describes the work of Janice Gould (Koyoonk’auwi Maidu) as a “Palimpsest of pasts and presents that fluidly intersect, overlap, and...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it