‘Standing with Each Other’: Indigenous-Muslim Relation-Making on Turtle Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the context of the northern part of Turtle Island, the space of relationships between Indigenous and Muslim communities is one intertwined within the history and geopolitical realities of settler-colonialism and immigration. This paper is an exploration of the theme of space, and relationship formation from the perspective of Muslim and Indigenous peoples in Canada who have engaged in building relations over the past two decades. This article is based on a wider qualitative semi-structured interview-based research project, supported by content analyses of existing literature and online resources produced by relevant organizations and initiatives. The research analysis has led me to thematically organize these spaces into four general types of spaces: 1) organization-led spaces of relationship building; 2) spaces of conviviality as pathways to relationship building; 3) relational spaces defined through acts of documentation; and 4) spiritually and emotionally bonded spaces that transcend a secular framework. This analysis led to identifying practices of relational meaning-making that form a preliminary understanding of what characterizes Indigenous-Muslim relations on Turtle Island.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".