New Spaces, New Subjectivities: Gender, Caribbean Politics, and Black Diasporic Productions of Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines how Caribbean spaces in Canada produce and are produced by political subjects. Caribbean space (Boyce Davies, 2013) refers throughout to a relation of multiple places, practices, and movements across the territorial Caribbean and its diaspora that produces particular subjectivities. In conversation with the writings of Black feminist geographers and other decolonial thinkers, I examine the relationships, practices, representations, and political practices that recreate Caribbean life in Canada. This research is attentive to the social reproductive labour of these participants which transforms the conditions in which they live and enacts meaningful presence in their cities. Using archival work and oral history interviews with 22 Black women and gender non-conforming people, this research considers the homespaces, sites of civic friendship, and diasporic relations through which participants come to develop their political practices. Articulated here are political subjectivities that are not limited to what is typically recognized as activism. Rather, the interviewees demonstrate how care practices, the cultivation of friendship, and engagements with collective memory produce spatial knowledge and shape ways of doing political work. This dissertation argues for a way to think about how people transform urban space outside of the most legible forms of political participation and demonstrates the limits of looking for the political only in spectacular events and confrontations with state institutions. Though large-scale occupations appear across these interviews as critical events, they are not the most significant Caribbean and Black diasporic sites for the (re)production of political thought and practice. Thus, these conversations offer a way of thinking about the political that refuses nihilism and draws on history (both collective and personal) to imagine more just futures. These ways of being enable the people interviewed to navigate “new” political terrains and urban struggles in the diaspora that lead to the transformation of space.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".