MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285043229 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15089

Toward Indigenous Ultimate Permanence: Examining Settler Colonialism and Genocidal Elimination in Canada and Israel

2022· dissertation· en· W4285043229 on OpenAlexaffabout
Molly Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideColonialismIndigenousFraming (construction)CommitPolitical scienceSolidarityLawGeographyArchaeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis critically compares technologies of settler colonialism and genocidal elimination in Canada and Israel.Keeping with the argument that recognizes settler colonialism as an entity that destroys to replace, genocide is taken up as a theoretical framing device that addresses comparable methods of both the material and discursive elimination of Indigenous peoples in Canada and Palestinians within and outside of Israel.At the same time as the two settler states continue to commit genocide against the original inhabitants of the lands they have stolen, Canada and Israel utilize similar selfpromotion strategies that present themselves as humanitarian and democratic, a specific tool used to wash away the sins of settler colonialism and genocide.While no two settler regimes are exactly the same, this thesis identifies key structural similarities between the two states and makes the case for an international solidarity movement rooted in principles of anti-colonialism and Indigenous ultimate permanence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207