Facing nuclear colonialism and nuclear imperialism together
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.This commentary shares insights on the important role collaboration plays in supporting critical nuclear scholars and producing critical nuclear scholarship that can engage audiences within and beyond academia. These insights are drawn from our nearly two decades of combined experience as a settler feminist critical scholar (Author 1) and Métis-settler feminist critical scholar (Author 2) researching in the nuclear space, as well as how we came together to collaboratively design political tools (nuclear maps) and a virtual hub (Anon) to support people contending with nuclear contestations in their everyday lives and research. The commentary emphasizes the important role our research collaboration has played in supporting our critical nuclear scholarship in the face of nuclear paternalism: the experience of being treated as ignorant and in need of guidance after raising critical questions about nuclear issues. While nuclear paternalism may attempt to shut down critical nuclear inquiries, we reframe this pushback as a generative force that invites researchers to refine and reconceptualize our approaches to critical nuclear scholarship and collaborations. By collectively addressing nuclear paternalism and engaging in generative collaborative scholarship—e.g., through following Eve Tuck’s advice to view our collaboration as a “contingent collaboration”[1] and taking the time to articulate our shared theory of change[2]—we suggest scholars can create a foundation for refining theorizations of nuclear technologies and society and foster methodological and interdisciplinary strategies that better address the dispersed and networked nature of nuclear power. [1] Tuck et al., “Geotheorizing Black/Land: Contestations and Contingent Collaborations,” 53.[2] Tuck, “Re-Visioning Action”; Tuck, “Suspending Damage: A Letter to Communities.”
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".