Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores how the colonial construction of Indigenous women as ‘unfit’ mothers of ‘inferior’ status justifies state interference in their lives, perpetuates other harmful stereotypes within the public consciousness and blames Indigenous mothers for their life conditions. Sterilization is but one weapon used by the Canadian state to violate Indigenous women’s right to reproductive autonomy, both historically and at present. Recent Canadian reports investigate Indigenous women’s claims to forced tubal ligation procedures and how coercion within colonial institutions stripped them of their power and identity through the removal of choice. Multiple class-action lawsuits are currently underway in Canada, where the voices of Indigenous women who have suffered the intergenerational impacts of colonialism in their daily lives and at the hands of western medical institutions are demanding justice and recognition of their basic human rights. Despite at least five generations of state-directed violence against them, Indigenous mothers continue to resist colonization of their bodies, land, and communities. Through reconnecting to their past, present, and future, Indigenous mothers are remembering their inherent roles and responsibilities as mothers of the nation. They have never forgotten their power nor their role as protectors of their people. They have always resisted. I aim to amplify the voices of Indigenous women in a country that has silenced them for too long and acknowledge that I by no means am interpreting their work through my point of view – I am giving them the space they deserve.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".