MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215211340 · doi:10.82308/43401

More powerful together: collaborative theorizing with social movements about decolonizing and decarbonizing Canada

2020· article· en· W3215211340 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Gobby

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial movementSociologyGender studiesPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the climate and inequality crises intensify in Canada, the federal government continues to approve pipelines and other oil and gas projects, violating commitments to both climate action and reconciliation with Indigenous nations. In response to this, grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and Indigenous communities are working hard to contest these projects and the colonial capitalist logics that underlie them. This thesis reports on four years of qualitative research developed and conducted in collaboration with people actively involved in the Indigenous land defense, climate/environmental justice, and anti-pipeline movements in Canada.The research explores, as a first central theme, the ways that movement actors understand the crises and their underlying causes and how they envision the worlds they want. People in these movements are seeing that climate change and inequality are both driven by colonial capitalism, which is undergirded by western worldviews that promote domination of people over nature and of people over other people. These systems have bred systemic disconnection from land and from each other, cutting us off from the communities, tools, and knowledges we need to get ourselves out of this mess. Their visions of the worlds they want conjure up a future of flourishing networks of decentralized, self-determining communities, powered by renewable energy, and learning from the land. This is a future where a hard process of decolonizing relations renders us all much more capable of living and making decisions together – decisions that benefit all beings. This future depends on a fundamental restructuring of our systems and a massive redistribution of wealth, power, and land.A second major theme of this work is the ways that people conceptualize how large-scale change happens. This theme is engaged first through a literature review of theories of change (TOCs) from various bodies of academic literature including Indigenous scholarship, Historical Materialism, Intersectional Feminism, Social Movement Studies, and Social-Ecological Systems Transformation. This thesis also brings together the TOCs held by activists in these movements. Though their TOCs are diverse and conflicting at times, when brought together, they emphasize that transformation happens through a complex convergence of 1) the contexts in which we act, 2) people’s understanding, worldviews, and values and 3) building power through collective action and directing that power in various ways. 4) Undergirding these 3 factors is how we relate to each other and how all our efforts combine in mutually supporting ways. The third major theme in this thesis examines the obstacles to change being faced. Activists and land defenders identified barriers that are external to the movement, including lack of public will, the capitalist-driven economic system, corporate influence over public decision-making, criminalization of activists, and others. People I spoke with also identified barriers more internal to the movements. These include fragmentation, internal tensions, the trends towards NGOization, hierarchical, centralized organizing structures, as well as the insular, overly-critical activist culture and activist burn-out. This project culminates in a collective strategizing on what can be done to overcome the barriers and increase the transformative power of these movements to successfully contest and weaken colonial capitalism and offer viable and inspiring alternatives. To overcome all these daunting barriers, we need much bigger, much stronger movements and to do so we need to develop more capacity for thinking and working across differences. A shared understanding that emerges from all the chapters is that forging stronger, more just relations within and across movements is crucial for strengthening our collective ability to bring radical change to Canada’s economic, political, and social systems

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0630.102
Scholarly communication0.0220.021
Open science0.0060.024
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.361
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207