Non-Colonial Creative Interventions: Collective Belonging through Shared Labour, Collaboration and Active Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What does it mean to belong on traditional and ancestral Indigenous lands, unceded and treaty territories? Can Indigenous and Settler peoples achieve collective belonging? This paper grapples with these questions through critical engagement with the politics of belonging and three creative projects that offer concrete practices for doing decolonial and non-colonial work. Such methods include an ethics of care and storytelling as a way of sharing knowledge differently, which are put into practice when Settler peoples responsibly, respectfully, reciprocally and relevantly do the labour of decolonisation, collaborate with Indigenous communities and become active participants in decolonial and non-colonial interventions. The artistic projects discussed include: Leah Decter and Jaimie Isaac’s (official denial) trade value in progress (2009–2014), David Garneau and Clement Yeh’s Apology Dice (2013) and Victoria May and Marjolaine Arpin’s Kitchen Table Talk (2023). These projects are all examples of collaborations between Indigenous and Settler artists and ultimately support the argument that collective belonging is achievable only when continual processes of Indigenous centring and Settler unsettling are enacted in society.
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".