Dispossession with Possession, Governance with Colonialism: Algonquian Hunting Territories and Anthropology as Engaged Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hunting territories have been and remain central to struggles of northern Algonquian peoples for governance of their lands, to the changes they envision, and for the responses they make when others enter their lands. Hunting territories are also envisioned by some nation-state governments and resource developers as means to disrupt Indigenous governance, communities and tenures to facilitate colonial regimes of control. What happened in this region, and how it came to be understood, has been part of the development of broad anthropological understandings of how peoples can continue living and actively governing their lands amidst colonial intrusions and relations. The anthropology of Algonquian hunting territories has throughout the last century been closely linked to several theoretical debates and to diverse anti-colonial analyses, both within and outside the discipline. Anthropologists’ work has involved ever-changing relationships with northern Algonquian peoples and with the beyond colonising movements, challenges and agreements they have initiated. These relationships have involved long-term anthropological engagements and practices that continue to be taken up in debates about anthropological scholarship and activism. The articles in this volume substantially update these northern Algonquian–state–market–anthropology relations and the analyses of Algonquian hunting territories. - - Les territoires de chasse ont été et demeurent centraux aux lutes des Peuples Algonquiens du Nord pour la gouvernance de leur territoire et dans les accommodements qu’ils envisagent et prennent avec ceux qui entrent sur leurs territoires. Les territoires de chasse sont aussi pensés par certains gouvernements d’États-nations et exploitants de ressources naturelles tel un moyen de déstabiliser la gouvernance Autochtone, les communautés et leurs pratiques foncières afin de faciliter les régimes de contrôle coloniaux. Ce qui s’est passé dans cette région, et la manière dont les choses ont été comprises, a fait partie du développement du savoir anthropologique quant à la manière dont les peuples continuent de vivre sur leurs territoires et de les gouverner, malgré les intrusions et les relations coloniales. Au cours du siècle dernier, l’anthropologie des territoires de chasse Algonquiens a suivi de près divers débats théoriques, se liant à divers arguments anticoloniaux, tant au sein de la discipline qu’à l’extérieur. Les travaux des anthropologues révèlent la transformation continuelle de leurs relations avec les Peuples Algonquiens du Nord, et avec les mouvements, revendications et arrangements de décolonisation initiés. Ces relations ont impliqué l’établissement d’engagements et de pratiques anthropologiques sur le long terme, lesquels continuent de faire l’objet de débats quant à la recherche et l’activisme anthropologiques. Les articles de ce numéro spécial actualisent ses relations entre les Algonquiens du Nord, l’état et l’anthropogie, et les analyses des territoires de chasse Algonquiens.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".