The Ethical Space of Engagement Between Indigenous Women and Girls of a Drum Circle and White, Settler Men of a Police Chorus: Implications for Policing Ideology, Policies, and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centering an Indigenous research framework and methodology, this study set out to inquire as to how an unlikely singing partnership between Indigenous women and girls of a drum circle and white, Settler men of a police chorus has been sustained within a local context for five years. Through engagement with one another, an ethical space upheld by willingness, responsibility, accountability, and reciprocity was created that enabled dialogue and understanding of the historical and ongoing systemic violence perpetrated against Indigenous peoples and the need for ideological structural and systemic change in policing policies and practices. An emergent and, decidedly, central theme deriving from participants’ stories was the importance of the shared ethics of: truth, care (love), respect, courage, honesty, humility, and wisdom that served to maintain the ethical space. Interpretation of these findings through an Indigenous epistemological lens reveals the sacred teachings of the Anishinaabe1 peoples about living in harmony with all of one’s relations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".