Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This book interrogates normative conceptions of Indigenous self-determination and the structures of Indigenous self-government institutions, arguing that Indigenous self-determination is not achievable without restructuring all relations of domination beyond that with the state; nor can it be secured in the absence of gender justice. It demonstrates that the current rights discourse and focus on Indigenous–state relations is limited in scope and fails to convey the full meaning of self-determination for Indigenous peoples. Besides settler colonialism and neoliberal capitalism, relations of domination include racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, and gender violence, including violence against women, queer, trans and gender-nonconforming persons, and structural violence. Drawing on extensive participant interviews in Canada, Greenland, and Scandinavia, this book theorizes Indigenous self-determination as a foundational value, informed by the norm of integrity. This norm has two interrelated dimensions: bodily integrity and integrity of the land, both of which are a sine qua non for Indigenous gender justice. Conceptualizing self-determination as a foundational value seeks to restructure all relations of domination, including the hierarchical relation between self-determination and gender created and maintained by international law, Indigenous political discourse, and Indigenous institutions. The book argues that the persistent separation of issues between self-determination/self-government and gender/social is a major obstacle in implementing, realizing, and exercising Indigenous self-determination. Restructuring relations of domination further entails examining the gender regimes present in existing Indigenous self-government institutions, interrogating the relationship between Indigenous self-determination and gender violence, and considering future visions of Indigenous self-determination, including rematriation of Indigenous governance and an independent statehood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.217 | 0.061 |
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".