MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298003844 · doi:10.18357/ghr111202220419

Situating the S-Slur Within the Colonial Imaginary: The Shaping and Shaming of Indigenous Un/Womanhood in Western Canada during the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries

2022· article· en· W4298003844 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sinéad O'Halloran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Graduate History Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousThe ImaginaryGender studiesColonialismPatriarchySociologyHuman sexualityState (computer science)HegemonyPolitical sciencePoliticsLawPsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper charts the shifting connotations, uses and impacts of the s-slur, a derogatory term used by colonizers to refer to Indigenous women, in archival Western Canadian newspapers. It aims to demonstrate the influences of hetero-patriarchy, racism, and capitalism on the perception of Indigenous ‘un/womanhood’ during the expansion of the settler state. It draws upon feminist and linguistic frameworks to examine the coloniality of gender, naming, and slurs. By examining how the use of the s-slur fluctuated between insinuations of victimhood (in relation to Indigenous gender roles, traditions, and marriage) and threat (in association with sexual deviancy and sex work), this paper aims to demonstrate how the term represented both sides of the racialized gender dichotomy, depending on how it could best serve the colonial project. This research is an attempt to understand the legacies of violence inflicted by, and encapsulated in, the use of this word towards Indigenous women, and to argue for the necessity of de-normalizing its use.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0190.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Graduate History ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207