Re-storying political theory: Indigenous resurgence, idle no more and colonial apprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation considers the ethical and methodological challenges that the transformative movements of Indigenous resurgence present to political theory scholarship’s ways of telling, giving accounts of and accounting for, Indigenous politics. It takes experiences of the grassroots mobilizations of Idle No More in the winter of 2012-13, deemed a flashpoint political event and perceivable as an appearance of resurgence in Canada’s settler-dominated public spaces, as impetus to confront these challenges. It describes the discursive and epistemological reorientations advocated by Indigenous theorists and activists on resurgence, away from external recognition and toward regeneration of traditional and decolonial lifeways and intellectual systems. This involves refusals of demands for the disclosure and intelligibility of Indigenous knowledges, practices and stories in these refigurative processes. It suggests these reorientations highlight and also disrupt a pervasive colonial drive to classificatory apprehensions of Indigenous peoples that deny their inherent rights and powers of self-determination and attempt their capture and reformation into governable subjects; meeting structural exigencies of settler-colonial dispossession and domination. It argues that addressing how political theory scholarship might capitulate to and reproduce this colonial apprehensiveness is a necessary critical project, but more so is articulating substantively how it might instead model resurgence’s reorientations. Resources to describe, analytically link and recount political action in these ways, balancing imperatives to theorize and tell with its risks and uncertainties, can be found in Indigenous storytelling principles, whose patterns can be aligned with certain sublimated threads in Euro-Western thought. This dissertation engages and begins to contribute to both endeavors.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".