CANTech Justice: Grassroots Responses to Digital Bias and Technological Power in the Canadian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Our co‐authored article investigates how grassroots arts and culture organizations engage technology as a site of justice‐oriented practice. Drawing on primary‐source interviews with Canadian grassroots arts and culture organizations, we outline an EDI‐infused technological praxis we call CANTech Justice (CTJ). CTJ provides a framework for understanding how cultural and artistic organizations resist exclusionary technologies and imagine justice‐centered alternatives. Rather than rejecting digital tools outright, these organizations engage in re‐purposing and re‐scripting—transforming existing technologies through creative, relational, and politically‐grounded practices that challenge dominant design norms and assert community control. CTJ also responds to the dominance of U.S.‐based technological infrastructures and frameworks in digital justice discourse. It does so by foregrounding locally‐rooted, intersectional approaches to technological agency. However, CTJ operates within the Canadian settler state—a nation built on land theft, resource dispossession, and cultural genocide of Indigenous peoples. These conditions set clear limits to what CTJ strategies can achieve, particularly in relation to decolonial interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".