Forgetting How to Think: On the Effects of Settler Colonialism in Crow Winter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation examines the influence of settler colonialism on the Anishinaabe community depicted in the novel Crow Winter by Karen McBride, looking at interactions between the Anishinaabeg characters, including the protagonist Hazel Ellis and her spirit guide Nanabush, and how settler colonialism is affecting the community. In my studies of other Indigenous texts, it has become clear that drifting away from traditional culture, teachings, and ways of living are seen to be the primary effects of ongoing settler colonialism on Indigenous peoples. The focus of this presentation is specifically on the effects of settler colonialism that brush aside traditional Indigenous ways of thinking and living, treating them as irrelevant to the modern Western settler world of Canada and at times replacing them with “more appropriate” or “more reasonable” Western ways of thinking and living. The loss of knowledge in this way is shown by Hazel’s reactions to traditional teachings, either not realizing their importance or attempting rationalize them in a Western mindset, as well as by the musings of Nanabush on the state of the Spirit Bear Point Anishinaabeg and the conversations between Hazel’s father Abraham and the Quebecois land developer Thomas Gagnon about the necessity of the silver mine for the community.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".