Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Disjunctures: Indigenous Redirections in Political Theory offers a critical, comparative engagement with North American Indigenous and dominant Euro-modern political traditions, and explores the irreconcilable differences between them. These differences disclose political options that cannot be pursued simultaneously or, in a word, disjunctures. For contemporary political societies committed to reconciliation, choices will have to be made. While these disjunctures are explored in the context of Canada, they are nevertheless disclosive of an edifying political otherwise to currently dominant dispensations. Disjunctures argues that dominant Euro-modern traditions model political societies according to notions of justice, and following the determinations of an independent, autonomous people. The associated practices of governance express an ethos of mastery that is fundamentally unreciprocal and unresponsive to other humans, other-than-humans, and ecological contexts. In contrast, Disjunctures argues that Indigenous traditions model political societies as part of a broader ecological context of understanding, and thus give priority to the search for, and maintenance of, harmony. These traditions provide a political model that is nonhierarchical, noncoercive, and primarily focused on the need to sustain and preserve relationships with others, other-than-humans, and the land itself. As such, they require a deep reciprocal responsiveness in governance. Disjunctures explores the consequences that recognizing these irreconcilable political options will have for the political project of reconciliation, arguing that reconciliation must be transformative, of both political structures and subjectivities. Ultimately, Disjunctures argues that Indigenous political traditions disclose an attractive, decolonial path toward which political theory and conduct should be redirected.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.008 |
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".