Relationally responsibly reading: an approach to Indigenous literary criticism amid Métis identity politics in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates Indigenous literary criticism practices relative to contemporary identity politics in a Canadian context, focusing on Métis (one of three constitutionally recognized Indigenous Peoples in Canada) politics considering recent accusations of identity theft leveled against the Métis Nation of Ontario at the first ever Summit of Indigenous Identity Fraud. This article provides an overview of the situation, followed by a suggested approach to Indigenous literary criticism that accounts for such identity politics, using Cherie Dimaline’s young adult novel, The Marrow Thieves (2017) as an example site for exploration. Considering the context and contention around Métis Nation of Ontario and its membership, this article develops a method of literary criticism that accounts for Indigenous identity politics and calls for responsibility and relationality in all readerships. This approach to literary criticism is called relationally responsible reading .
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.063 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".