MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404729919 · doi:10.1111/anti.13120

Between Now and Future Sovereignty: Indigenous Forestry in the Conjuncture

2024· article· en· W4404729919 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Simpson, Clifford Gordon Atleo, Bruce Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueAntipode · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousPolitical scienceForestryPolitical economyEconomic historySociologyEconomicsGeographyLawEcologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The participation of Indigenous nations in the industrial logging of their own territories has received scant attention in academic literature despite the challenges it poses for decolonial critiques of extractive industries and efforts of non‐Indigenous land defenders to build solidarity with Indigenous nations. Taking as a point of departure recent struggles over the logging of old forests on Vancouver Island, in the settler province of British Columbia, and drawing on the political economic history of the island's Nuu‐chah‐nulth peoples, we employ a conjunctural analysis to argue that Indigenous forestry can be understood as the articulation of Indigenous practices of self‐determination (in a context heavily constrained by the colonial past and present) with a set of structural fixes for an industry in crisis. We argue that understanding the present moment of Indigenous forestry as a conjuncture affords an analysis of the tricky conditions that Indigenous communities must imperfectly and strategically navigate to adapt their livelihoods and exercise self‐determination in the colonial present while maintaining possibilities for a decolonised future. It also points to a series of contractions at work in Indigenous forestry which could become disarticulated and rearticulated, potentially opening up wider possibilities for a decolonial future in “BC forests”.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntipodeSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207