Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little scholarship has specifically considered the phenomenon of eviction as a colonial process, or examined the role of the eviction legal system in reproducing colonial structures and relations. Our aim in this article is to address this gap and thereby extend to the eviction legal system context the work of scholars who have theorized the colonialism of the criminal justice, child welfare, and carceral systems. This article begins with an overview of current issues relating to urban Indigenous housing in Canada. The next section introduces Indigenous concepts of home and homelessness, which are distinct from dominant understandings. We then place the discussion within the larger context of settler colonialism and critiques of this relation of power. We look specifically at Indigenous conceptions of home and homelessness, as well as how settler colonialism has shaped dominant ideas about property and ownership that underlie the right to evict in Canadian law. The paper then turns to a discussion of how the eviction legal system functions in a “classical” colonial sense to both destabilize and dispossess Indigenous families, and to reinscribe settler claims to property. Fundamentally, we believe there is a need for research and storytelling about the relationship between Indigenous peoples and eviction legal systems in Canada, and we think there is room to imagine decolonizing the eviction legal system.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".