The Impact Of The Indian Act On Indigenous Women's Voices: Rereading Sex-Based Discrimination Case Law Against Indigenous Feminist Theatre Movement Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis contextualizes the landmark cases of Lovelace and McIvor within the Indigenous Feminist Theatre Movement. A “law as literature” method is built on to note how legal pluralist law reform of the Indian Act’s Indian Status rules is necessary. The two plays of Strength Of Indian Women and Women Of The Fur Trade are read alongside the cases to contrast the ways in which women's lives are represented and understood in each. This juxtaposition reveals how Indigenous women's challenges to sex-based discrimination have historically been stifled. Canada’s laws fail to include cultural norms, reflecting Indigenous legal orders, that Indigenous women voice in the theatre. The narratives envision valuable Indigenous matriarchal identities despite the Indian Act’s requisite masking of them behind non-Indigenous marital identities. The masking is revealed to be a barrier to Indigenous women’s full representation and expression informed by their cultural identities. Positive fictional roles counter stereotypes of Indigenous women in the real world thereby contributing to normative reshaping and jurisgenesis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".