What Do We Owe To Each Other? Exploring Settler Identity in the Works of Ayumi Goto and Jin-me Yoon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines socially-engaged art by Japanese-Canadian artist Ayumi Goto and Korean-Canadian artist Jin-me Yoon, whose works consider issues of identity within the settler colonial context of Canada. Using the title question as a point of departure, this thesis examines how Goto and Yoon consider ideas of indebtedness and relationality in their practices. I argue that their works are conduits for the observer to reflect on their own place on Indigenous land. This thesis examines how their artworks and practices reflect their connection to place through their distinct, self-described identities and tackles thorny questions about how racialized settlers inherit legacies of colonialism. Further, I explain how that informs their relationship with Indigenous peoples and lands, and how doing so creates a new understanding of ‘multiculturalism’ in Canada. Drawing from settler-colonial discourse and decolonial theory, this thesis focuses on Asian-Indigenous relationality as a case study for exploring the complexities of relationality and settler responsibility in the arts in Canada. This thesis is structured in three sections: the first section considers the current state of Canadian nationality, in tune with critiques offered by theorists concerned with possible alternatives to the concept of nationhood. The second section offers background on settler responsibility and discusses gestures of respect and indebtedness. The third section reflects on relational histories and how Asian-Indigenous relationalities affect Goto and Yoon’s practices. Ultimately, this thesis will argue that Goto and Yoon’s works are conduits for the observer to reflect on their place on Indigenous land and, in doing so, hold the potential for healing relationships through an embodied arts practice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".