Indigeneity in the courtroom: Law, culture, and the production of difference in North American courts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation considers how culturalist arguments are being deployed and interpreted in legal cases involving indigenous peoples in both Canada and the United States. Focusing specifically on three court cases, it asks how a certain kind of difference, indigeneity, is produced in both legal and extra-legal spheres. Rather than having a specific referent that is indigenous cultural practice and epistemology, indigeneity references the idea that indigenous difference is produced in particular contexts, in response to a variety of sociopolitical forces.\nThe dissertation closely examines these three recent cases involving indigenous peoples, one from the U.S. and two from Canada. In each of these cases, the courts deploy the idiom of indigenous difference, indigeneity , in purportedly novel and unexpected ways. The dissertation argues that despite their superficial novelty, these cases are not especially anomalous; they are, in fact, part of continuing processes which rely on reductive multiculturalist discourses of indigeneity to continue to manage and even deny the existence of a colonial past and a postcolonial present.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".