MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Fiscal Politics of Settler Colonialism

2025· article· en· W4415107733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Law and Social Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsColonialismFraming (construction)IndigenousState (computer science)Possession (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review concentrates on the fiscal practices of settler colonial states and societies such as Canada and the United States. Synthesizing critical interdisciplinary literature, I characterize how the fiscal forwards settler political goals of civilization, dispossession, and possession of Indigenous people, nations, and territory. Emphasizing the sociality and material power effects of fiscal colonialism demonstrates how practices like taxation have been administered historically and contemporarily around imperatives of settler authorities and against Indigenous nationhood. Organized around the knowledge politics of fiscal colonialism, the review foregrounds how fiscal discourses, techniques, and knowledge forms are integral to understanding settler colonial legal and political framing of Indigenous peoples. In doing so, this literature analyzes how public finance is structured and constituted by racist economic hierarchies, political ideologies, and property regimes that inscribe anti-Indigenous imperatives into law, state repertoires, and social practices.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.363 · 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