Bibliographic record
Abstract
T his paper is an exploration of refusal.Refusal as a philosophy, a practice, and a politics, is a theme permeating a particular brand of Indigenous thinking (and living) regarding the "impossible but therapeutic fallacy of reconciliation" 1 in what is now Canada.It argues against reducing Indigenous visions of justice to state recognition.From the Eastern Canadian context, it is Audra Simpson's biting analysis of Indigenous-settler relations that offers a way into this enquiry, and it is with her rejection of recognition as "the sine qua non if not the end point, the orgasm of justice today," 2 that this paper will begin.Denying and transgressing the boundaries of settler-colonial logic, by which Indigenous subjects have been placed within certain histories and geographies created and maintained by state power, refusal becomes a new mechanism for "dismantling the systems of colonial domination." 3 Taking seriously Neal McLeod's assertion that Indigenous dispossession through colonial presence is both a "spatial and a spiritual exile," 4 and Leanne Simpson's insistence that land is "constructed and defined by our intimate spiritual, emotional, and physical relationship with it," 5 the following discussion will trace the spiritual dimension of refusal, in order to embed refusal in a broader set of spiritual commitments which ultimately tie this radical politics-as-presence both to the past -and to the imagined future.1. Audra Simpson, "The Ruse of Consent and the Anatomy of 'Refusal': Cases from Indigenous North America and Australia," Postcolonial Studies 20, no. 1 (2017): 23. 2. Simpson, "The Ruse of Consent," 19. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, in As We
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".