Contesting colonial beachheads: Settler colonial (in)security professionals and Indigenous peoples’ energy infrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In April 2020, the British Columbia Utilities Commission released the Final Report of its Indigenous Utilities Regulation Inquiry. The Inquiry was tasked with determining the regulatory environment for Indigenous utility providers across the Canadian province. We analyse the Inquiry as a colonial encounter between Indigenous nations and the settler state, arguing that technical bodies like the Commission represent a sort of security professional working to depoliticize the reproduction of settler sovereignty, highlighting the operations of non-traditional security professionals in settler colonial contexts. Through the Inquiry, security comes through providing certainty for existing energy infrastructure and institutions as ‘colonial beachheads’, legitimizing the settler colonial political-economic order. However, the Inquiry also demonstrates that such processes offer opportunities for Indigenous nations to contest that order. Indeed, Indigenous nations used the Inquiry to both contest the legitimization of settler sovereignty and accumulation, and press for the capacity to build their own infrastructure and institutions, thereby enacting their decision-making authority. We explore this tension in the context of the contemporary reconciliation discourse, finding the Inquiry’s final recommendations represent an attempt to reify settler sovereignty, while also deepening settler insecurity through the possibilities opened for greater Indigenous self-determination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".