Power and Place: Mapping Indigenous Grassroots Organizing and Mobilizing for the MMIWG2S+ People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose – Having concluded that the long-term and ongoing murders and disappearances of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA (MMIWG2S+) people is genocide, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (NIMMIWG) (2019) made 231 Calls for Justice in relation to culture, health, security, and criminal justice to broadly address the ongoing colonial dispossession and systemic, racialized, and gendered violence against MMIWG2S+ people. In response to these Calls for Justice, this article traces Indigenous grassroots initiatives to show the many ways that justice can be broadly conceived and mobilized to address the murders and disappearances. Methodology/Approach – Drawing on the Unearthing Justices Resource Collection of 500+ Indigenous grassroots initiatives for the MMIWG2S+ people, this work theorizes a spatial approach to justice using mapping methodologies. Findings – Not only have Indigenous families and communities been calling for justice, but they have also been cultivating justice across the land by building constellations of resource and support. The author traces the land-based activities specific to community patrols, land-based commemorations, search support, and walks and journeys to show the vast resources, skills, and strengths that already exist in Indigenous communities and how justice can be conceptualized within its local and spatial arrangements, and beyond the imaginaries of a criminal justice system. Originality/Value – Where the ongoing colonial dispossession and systemic, racialized, and gendered violence against MMIWG2S+ people is well documented, there has been less consideration of how Indigenous families and communities have navigated a terrain where justice continues to be absent,elusive, or invasive.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".