MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005773923

Settler roles and responsibilities: Engaging Indigenous rights in Canadian environmental activist organisations post-TRC and #IdleNoMore

2018· dissertation· en· W7005773923 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSAS-Space (University of London) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)CommissionIndigenous rightsPoliticsHuman rightsCircumstantial evidence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis I investigate how settler environmentalists in organising hubs in Central and Eastern Canada were engaged with Indigenous rights issues through their environmental activist work in 2014 and 2015. I consider how settlers in these hubs understood their roles and responsibilities to the project of advancing Indigenous rights alongside #IdleNoMore – a broader Indigenous-led movement. I also consider how settler activists acted out their roles and responsibilities towards Indigenous peoples in relation to the politics of reconciliation and Indigenous rights that emerged in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. \n \nIn 2015 Canada concluded the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2008-2015). This commission took place at the same time as the #IdleNoMore social Movement (2012-2014) was springing up around the country, demonstrating Indigenous aspirations for changed political relationships. A long history of dispute, conflict and even animosity undergirds historical Indigenous / settler relations. I sought in this research project to understand how settler environmental activists engaged in relations of responsibility, reflecting an urgent interest amongst settlers to incorporate Indigenous rights into their mandates. This research looks through the lens of settler colonial studies and social psychology to ask why, in an age when information about Indigenous aspirations and goals are so readily available, settler publics still find it difficult to engage with forwarding Indigenous rights goals. \n \nThis thesis provides a framework for understanding the reasons why settlers sometimes struggle to work with Indigenous peoples towards decolonisation and reconciliation through the lens of understanding settler emotions against the backdrop of Indigenous human rights abuses in Canada. Ultimately I argue that if environmentalists want to bring an Indigenous rights lens into their activist workspaces they should avoid precipitating selfreferential emotions such as shame and guilt. I recommend that they work to increase organisational capacity to take collective responsibility for doing Indigenous rights work. I also argue that settlers should avoid directing energy towards self-referential strategies designed to relieve uncomfortable emotions; specifically, settlers must centre the aspirations of Indigenous peoples in their environmental activism work. \n \nThis thesis is the product of bringing together multiple disciplines that do not speak enough to each other: social psychology and settler colonial studies. I looked at settler colonial studies through the lenses of feminist theory and Indigenous theory. The critical insight I gained from feminist theorists was to look for theory in the details of unexceptional stories told by the people I interviewed. Rather than focus only on their narratives of participating in overt political organising, I asked them to tell me about their families, their relationships, their memories of the ways Indigenous rights issues had crossed their paths throughout their lives. Indigenous theory framed my overall conceptualisation of the research problem. As a Canadian settler researcher I acknowledge my relationship with the larger project of decolonisation of Turtle Island and place my study in the midst of an Indigenous-centred critique of colonial Canada.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0450.024
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAS-Space (University of London)Same topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207