With Allies Like These . . . : Promises and Pitfalls in the Anticolonial Theories of “Ally Toolkits”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Since the mid-2010s there has been a proliferation of “ally toolkits” that purport to offer guidance or actionable ways for those who view themselves as “allies” or supporters of various movements. The politically resurgent movements of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, for example, have been accompanied by and formed the backdrop of a considerable literature of toolkits produced for would-be settler allies. These toolkits are written for an imagined or desired ally and imagine ends or political horizons toward which allyship is striving. These toolkits can be understood as documents of political theory in order to critically engage the models for political change that are being advanced. Ultimately, allyship and the terms on which it is established within the examined toolkits are situated as an overly thin political theory when confronting social forces of ongoing settler colonialism and racial capitalism.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".