Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under unequal relations of power and often traumatic conditionscolonization, sedentarization, dispossession, and arduous processes of land rights recognition -Indigenous involvement with and knowledge about the land have been reshaped through time and space, and have now become entangled with mainstream societies.Grounded in vivid ethnographic examples, Entangled Territorialities analyses how contemporary Indigenous people in Canada and Australia "live" the land, and how their changing knowledge of the land remains at the heart of their indigeneity.Most of the lands to which Indigenous peoples are connected have been physically transformed, resulting in destruction of their ecological balance.But long after the agents of resource extraction have abandoned these lands, Indigenous people continue to claim ancestral ties and responsibilities towards their territories, however transfigured and degraded.Each chapter in this volume discusses specific circumstances in which Indigenous peoples have become intertwined with non-Aboriginal institutions and projects, such as the construction of hydroelectric dams and open-pit mines.Together the editors and contributors offer an integrated, in-depth comparative study that advances the larger debates about the vexed relationships between settlers and Indigenous peoples over the meaning, knowledge, and management of traditionally owned lands.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.851 | 0.663 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".