MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199352418 · doi:10.1177/10778004211042359

Walking Unsettling Depremacy: A Preliminary Proposition for Questioning the Right to Go Anywhere

2021· article· en· W3199352418 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leah Decter

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsNSCAD University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousColonialismPerspective (graphical)RecreationWhite (mutation)SociologyPropositionState (computer science)Environmental ethicsAestheticsGender studiesLawPolitical scienceEpistemologyEcologyVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an expression of the “right to go anywhere,” walking or hiking in settler states, particularly on recreational infrastructures such as the Trans Canada Trail, can be understood to support a form of white settler emplacement that is contingent on Indigenous displacement. These infrastructures and activities also contribute to assumptions of settler-state sovereignty over Indigenous lands common to the contemporary settler colonial project. In this article, I consider these conditions alongside arts-based methodologies I have developed from a critical white settler perspective to reveal, challenge, and subvert them. A discussion of my video, l i s t e n, demonstrates how one such methodology, unsettling depremacy, critically contends with specific interactions with place. I conclude by proposing walking unsettling depremacy as methodology in development that can be deployed to interfere with the ways white settler walking and its recreational infrastructures assert colonial claim.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.074
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative InquirySame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207