Decolonizing Methodologies: Considerations for Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Immigration Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers various aspects of Indigenous Peoples' participation in Canada's immigration policy paradigm by asking whether Indigenous involvement can support relationships between Indigenous and newcomer peoples and the state. Critical Indigenous and newcomer scholars posit that relationships must be fostered outside the state apparatus. Approaches to decolonization and reconciliation need not solely take place outside of formal mechanisms. However, scholars point to a politics of refusal as a legitimate means to circumvent the oppressive structural foundation of Indigenous and state relations. The modes of refusal are plentiful, creative, and point to a relationship between peoples that goes beyond education as a tool for reconciliation while understanding it to be a fundamental part of the healing process. Regardless of the form Indigenous involvement would take, this paper fosters a necessary discussion based on an ethics of consent and subsequent action.
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 | 0.096 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".