MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6988123355

"We have to get really uncomfortable to get comfortable"

2025· other· en· W6988123355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Theses of LMU Munich (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousNarrativeSovereigntyIdentity (music)ColonialismEthnographyRepresentation (politics)Cultural identity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing that representations are constructed and not mimetic, this dissertation considers how objects such as postage stamps, pipelines, and beads circulate narratives of Indigenous Peoples and geographies in Canada to both domestic and international audiences. Far from essentializing the experiences of the three main groups of Indigenous Peoples in Canada—First Nations, Metis, and Inuit—three distinct case studies, grounded in human geography, illustrate how specific groups of Indigenous Peoples and their geographies, which constitute unique configurations of people, places, cultures, and environments, have been, currently are, and are striving to be represented, while critically assessing the narratives of colonialism and reconciliation they circulate. Three types of representation are privileged, notably visual, media, and self-representation. How did a postage stamp issued in the 1950s featuring an Inuk hunter attempt to symbolically assimilate Inuit and their geographies into the Canadian body politic while bolstering Canada’s de facto sovereignty in the High Arctic? How do Indigenous views for and against fossil fuel extraction, as exemplified by the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project, come to be represented and communicated across media geographies? And how can forms of Indigenous self-representation, such as the practice and wearing of beadwork, both portray one’s identity and create strong social and cultural networks in urban areas, which have historically marginalized Indigenous Peoples and geographies? As the title suggests, answering these questions requires getting uncomfortable to get comfortable. To achieve this, three sets of methodologies are adopted to unsettle and advance these processes, namely the use of archival material, media content analysis, and semi-structured qualitative interviews. Picking up on the work of geographers to actively engage in the decolonization of the discipline, new methodologies and concepts are proposed to develop novel ways of “sensing” geography, through seeing, listening, and feeling different objects, while understanding them as vehicles of representation. Ultimately, by centring the voices of Indigenous Peoples, it is suggested that researchers can further develop anticolonial research frameworks, which meaningfully engage with Indigenous Peoples and geographies. The main contributions of this dissertation include 1) advancing the term banal colonialism to describe how the land-centered narrative of colonialism is circulated to a wide audience through unassuming and banal objects such as postage stamps, 2) the development of a new methodology for analyzing media content relating to the views of Indigenous Peoples, where media representation is cross-referenced with sources coming directly from the actors themselves over a long period of time, and 3) proposing the term “brave space” to characterize the spaces where Indigenous Peoples can access social and cultural networks of learning, exchange, and solidarity, which contribute to the formation of a sense of identity and place. Brought together, these case studies demonstrate how representations construct colonial imaginaries and imaginative geographies, and how present and future forms of representation can unsettle them, while advancing the project of truth, reconciliation, and healing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.055
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Theses of LMU Munich (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)French-language works237,207