Learning and unlearning: Settler engagements in long-term Indigenous–settler alliances in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on three cases of long-term Indigenous-settler alliances in Canada, this research investigates the roles and contributions of settlers towards decolonization. As a multidisciplinary team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, our research goal has been to understand how such alliances endure and change over time, and how they negotiate power dynamics, tensions and changes, within a settler colonial context. Taking a comparative case study approach, and analysing interviews, sharing circles and archival documents, we focus here on the lessons that alliance participants have learned from their activist experiences about settler roles and responsibilities. The three cases include (1) The Right to Belong: Indigenous women's organizing and the struggle to eliminate sex discrimination in the Indian Act; (2) Shoal Lake 40 First Nation's Freedom Road campaign to end a century of state-imposed geographic isolation and to secure access to safe drinking water; and (3) the alliance-building and solidarity activism of Canadian ecumenical social justice coalitions now under the umbrella of KAIROS Canada. While none of these campaigns alone equates to decolonization in the sense of land return and Indigenous sovereignty, each has helped create the conditions, relationships and transformations in settler consciousness that may provide the ground for decolonization. Taken together, the three case studies illustrate the contingent environments in which alliances are forged and the ways in which settlers take up particular responsibilities based on Indigenous-defined goals.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".