Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussions of indigenous self-determination have traditionally shown little enthusiasm for the idea of indigenous engagement in electoral politics – and for good reasons. Self-determination is usually understood as a means of gaining distance from, rather than inclusion in, state institutions. Legislative bodies are regarded with particular suspicion, even hostility, evoking memories of historic disenfranchisement or strategies of electoral inclusion linked to assimilation and the loss of indigenous rights. As a means of advancing indigenous objectives, moreover, electoral representation seems at best to offer only a token presence in institutions dominated by non-indigenous majorities, and at worst looks like a strategy for pacifying indigenous representatives while energy and resources are diverted away from the goal of indigenous self-government. In spite of these reservations, this article defends the view that electoral politics can be viewed as part of a broader strategy for advancing indigenous self-determination by targeting a variety of complementary access points to political power. The argument is grounded in a relational model of self-determination that emphasizes the importance of self-government and the need for modes of shared decision making capable of governing the complex interdependence characteristic of state–indigenous relationships today. While it is important to acknowledge its many shortcomings, much of the opposition to the electoral route to indigenous self-determination is based on unrealistic expectations regarding what this form of political voice is capable of delivering. Hence, one of the objectives of this article is to clarify the various functions that indigenous electoral representation can and cannot be expected to perform.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".