MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409070025 · doi:10.1177/03058298251319283

All My. . . Non-Relation: Critical Indigenous Theory in the Anthropocene

2025· article· en· W4409070025 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Gravlin

Bibliographic record

VenueMillennium Journal of International Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropoceneIndigenousRelation (database)Critical theoryEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologySociologyPhilosophyEcologyBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article emerges from dissatisfaction with Indigenous responses to the Anthropocene – a geological epoch that, after centuries of seeking industrial mastery over the Earth, now subordinates human interests to a world rendered alien and beyond control. Indigenous engagement with the Anthropocene and the associated post-, more-than-human and relational turns, typically affirms the entangled nature of reality that it foregrounds. This does not mount an objection to neoliberal capitalism, however, because the contemporary world order governs by invoking relational ontologies that are epitomised by Indigenous Peoples. I argue that the valorisation of indigeneity in critical theory and International Relations does not resolve Indigenous critiques of the Anthropocene as a western construct, it exacerbates if not renders them insufficient. In response to this, I seek to articulate a political theory of non-relation – a schematic model through which Indigenous Peoples might disguise themselves to the forces that expose and govern them in the Anthropocene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.057
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMillennium Journal of International StudiesSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207