Meet Them Where They're At: The intersection of Haudenosaunee knowledge and community justice reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on Indigenous, specifically Kanien'kehá:ka (Mohawk), understandings of law, healing, and justice. Looking to knowledge from Kanien'kehá:ka politico-legal culture, including The Great Law of Peace, and the Good Mind, this article will offer a differing, yet important, perspective to address community needs around justice. Centring Indigenous self-determination in the context of criminal justice reform is critical in abolitionist discourse. The abolitionist work that is being done needs to interact with Indigenous conceptions of justice, and the right to self-determination, in a robust and meaningful way. Abolitionism must genuinely engage with the right to Indigenous self-determination, including the right to administer our justice systems and legal orders. We discuss how the Good Mind is a relational and process-oriented political concept. It exists in a community context, where the Good Mind is a 'state of being' as much as it serves as a guide to relating with others in a good way. Contemporary Indigenous community justice programs represent a culturally-based approach to rehabilitation and wellness, ensuring that Indigenous peoples and communities are healthy and flourishing. Such programs provide us with a glimpse and better sense of what the administration of criminal justice can look like in a future where Indigenous self-determination is respected and affirmed. We end with conversations about Indigenous justice and law, which represent a critical contribution to abolitionist discourses.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".