Indigeneity in urban communities : relationality, dualism, and the lived experiences of Indigenous persons who live in Vancouver and Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, approximately half of Indigenous peoples live in urban communities. However, in academic and popular discourse, ‘authentic’ Indigenous peoples are often located in rural ‘natural’ environments away from ‘man-made’ urban communities. I think this sets up a contradiction – where Indigenous peoples are factually present in urban communities but are absent in the contemporary academic and popular imaginary – and so marginalizes the realities of Indigenous persons who live in urban communities. The overall purpose of this dissertation is to demonstrate the diverse ways contemporary Indigenous peoples who live in urban communities conceptualize and operationalize their values and enact their lives as this intersects with the meaning of land, reconciliation, relations, and work. Theoretically, I discuss different non-Indigenous and Indigenous discourses on what constitutes the land and their implications for how Indigenous peoples who live in urban communities recognize themselves, are recognized by others, and how they recognize others. I also consider the implication of different liberal (individualistic and relational) and Indigenous relational discourses on the project of transforming liberal institutions into relational institutions. The four substantive chapters include Chapter 2, which investigates how non-Indigenous and Indigenous discourses on reality (or what academics refer to as their ontological worldviews) structure how Indigenous persons see themselves and their relationship to others (human and nonhuman). Chapter 3 engages with the everyday acts of reconciliation of Indigenous persons who live in Vancouver and Nanaimo – whereby they seek to improve the relationships with themselves and others (Indigenous, non-Indigenous, and nonhumans) across several urban communities. Chapter 4 engages with liberal and Indigenous relational discourses on reality, particularly, how they are expressed in contexts assumed to be meritocratic. Chapter 5 engages with five Indigenous persons who live in urban communities’ conceptualizations and enactments of work and their economic lives and how they structure and are structured by their desire to build community and become the persons they want to be. I conclude this thesis by arguing for the importance of recognizing Indigenous diversity and the relational reality of existence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".