Are Colonial Systems in Canada and Australia Similar? A Study on Kenneth T. Willams’ In Care and Dallas Winmar’s Aliwa!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
So different, yet so alike, Canada and Australia, the land of wilderness and the land of bushes respectively, are two nations that go back thousands of years with their culture, practices, traditions, and the natives’ deep and sacred relationship with the land. The arrival of the Europeans disrupted the peace and the pattern of their lives, resulting in loss of indigenous lands, languages, cultures, and misplaced identity. Kenneth T. Williams, in his play In Care, draws attention to the flaws and loopholes in the system that trap natives like spider-webs. The second play taken up for study is Aliwa! by Dallas Winmar, an Australian play that recounts the journey of a mother, who strives hard to escape the clutches of the system trying to break her and her children up. While much research has been done on the sufferings and trauma of the native people, what really transpires on the other side is mostly kept in the dark. This paper examines how the colonial systems in Canada and Australia mirror each other in multiple aspects. It also draws attention to the systems established in colonial Canada and Australia, which aimed at obliterating any and all vestiges of Aboriginality, under the pretext of ‘civilizing’ the uncivilized. The paper utilises a play from each nation to validate the central objective of the paper, with a particular emphasis on the act of taking Aboriginal children away from their parents, a strategy used by the colonizers in both nations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".