MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247177159 · doi:10.5749/9781452942421

Red Skin, White Masks

2010· book· en· W4247177159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glen Coulthard

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Minnesota Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPoliticsColonialismWhite (mutation)State (computer science)Political scienceGender studiesSociologyLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition is an interdisciplinary of work of critically engaged political theory that traverses the fields of political science and Indigenous studies. The arguments developed in the book draw critically from both Western and Indigenous traditions of political thought and action to intervene into contemporary debates about settler-colonization and Indigenous self-discrimination in Canada. The book challenges the now commonplace assumption that the colonial relationship between Indigenous peoples and the state can be “reconciled” via such a politics of recognition. It also explores glimpses of an alternative Indigenous politics. Drawing critically from Indigenous and non-Indigenous intellectual and activist traditions, the book explores a resurgent Indigenous politics that is less orientated around attaining an affirmative form of recognition and institutional accommodation by the colonial state and society, and more about critically revaluing, reconstructing and redeploying Indigenous cultural practices in ways that seek to prefigure radical alternative to the social relationships that continue to dispossess Indigenous peoples of their lands and self-determining authority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations3,753
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Minnesota Press eBooksSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207