Indigenising International Relations: Insights from Centring Indigeneity in Canada and Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article responds to recent calls to decolonise International Relations. Despite the urgency of this task, much of this work remains at the margins or worse, bound to colonial world views and commitments. Against this backdrop, we first argue that centring Indigeneity demands scholarship that unravels the current configurations of the field and moves away from merely adding Indigeneity as a category within neoliberal, colonial, Westernised frameworks. Second, we assert that Critical Indigenous Studies offers a theoretically generative framework to begin examining international issues in new ways. To illustrate, we re-read sovereignty debates in Québec (Canada) and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) through a critical Indigenous lens to disrupt the discourse and taken-for-granted understandings of self-determination struggles for secession in these two sites. Along with highlighting a path towards Indigenising the discipline, our work also reveals how distinct, yet intertwined colonialisms function across the globe.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".