Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abolitionist Intimacies is a work in three parts that addresses scholarly, creative, and community dimensions of abolitionist thought, organizing, and resistance. The first section explores abolitionist theorizing and praxis in Canada through a theoretical lens of prison studies, autoethnography, decolonial studies, Black feminism, and Indigenous knowledges. As both subject and method of the dissertation, I engage ideas of intimacy and their practices through their relationship to state violence at carceral sites including prisons, policing, borders, as well as through purported care institutions such as hospitals and social work. I contrast state policing of intimacy through mechanisms such as the prison visit, strip search, and managing community contact with incarcerated people to the building of intimacy through relationships and organizing with people inside. The history of the prison in Canada and its ongoing relationship to settler-colonialism, anti-Blackness, classism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia, and transmisogyny and sexism are theorized in relationship to the ongoing struggles of prisoners for justice and liberation. The second section of the work, Canada is so Polite, is a poetic, creative non-fiction and journalistic exploration of state violence in Canada; activist resistance to criminalization, policing, and deportation; as well as a personal exploration of family histories of colonialism and my own relationship to and location within the settler state that is Canada. In four movements, the book explores sites of advocacy and organizing against confinement and deportation; my personal histories and perspectives as a Black woman and daughter; sites of encounter with settler-colonialism such as statues, military conferences, and social cultures; and activist and abolitionist futures. In the final section, I explore the personal and communal commitments that work towards building an abolitionist ethic based in collective principle and care.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".