Cowboys et Indiens. Masculinités, métissage et queeritude chez Tomson Highway et Louis Hamelin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrie Scott analyse tour à tour les masculinités autochtones construites par le romancier québécois Louis Hamelin dans Cowboy (1992) et celles proposées par l’écrivain cri Tomson Highway dans Champion et Ooneemeetoo [Kiss of the Fur Queen] (1998). Scott démontre que les deux auteurs jouent différemment du métissage et de son rapport avec le colonialisme : tandis que Hamelin met en scène des personnages autochtones dévirilisés et en perte d’authenticité, Highway s’appuie sur la notion amérindienne de bispiritualité pour créer des personnages queer qui transcendent les constructions binaires sur lesquelles se base la masculinité hégémonique. \n \nCorrie Scott examines the notion of métissage in the representation of Indigenous masculinities in Cowboy by Québécois novelist Louis Hamelin (1992) and in Kiss of the Fur Queen by Cree novelist Tomson Highway (1998). Scott shows the different ways in which the two authors approach the notion of métissage and its relationship with colonialism: while Hamelin depicts hybrid Indigenous characters as less authentic and virile, Highway embraces a queer poetics that questions hegemonic masculinities and gendered colonial stereotypes through hybrid fictional male identities. An intersectional theoretical framework proves essential to the analysis of hegemonic masculinities which function hand in hand with colonialism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".