Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation traces how 'the taxpayer' is assembled as a subject for political action on the state and First Nations governments.Theoretically, the dissertation draws on an analytics of governmentality which focuses on the multiplicity of non-state elements of governing.I propose the concept taxpayer governmentality to show how 'taxpayers' are responsibilized to govern their own political conducts, delimit the scope of the state, and morally scrutineer Others imagined as burdens.The dissertation attends to two key questions: (1) what is the political spirit of the ubiquitous taxpayer?And (2) how is the taxpayer made up as a subject?I argue that while the taxpayer is a mobile political subject, it is animated by liberal critique of state action, and settler colonial entitlement to possession and control of Indigeneity.Further, I argue that technologies of government and surveillance produce putatively objective data about various 'objects', which are then packaged by taxpayer groups and rendered intelligible to the imperatives of taxpayers; this includes knowledge derived from public numbers, accounting, auditing, and transparency.In order to show the mobility and range of the taxpayer, the dissertation analyzes two cases, the Metro Vancouver tax plebiscite, and the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.I draw upon analysis of texts, ethnographic data, and a small set of interviews.In both empirical chapters I show how the taxpayer is differentially constructed as an actor in relation to convergent problematizations.The Metro Vancouver case shows how the taxpayer was mobilized as political adjudicant of the region's transit corporation through a strategic permanent critique of government and addressed through what I call an economy of evidence.The First Nations Financial Transparency Act chapter examines how two forms of taxpayer subjectivity emerged: First, the settlertaxpayer positioned Indigenous nations as objects to be surveilled, scrutinized, and rendered public property.Second, the Act fostered Indigenous-taxpayer subjectivity, envisioned by Indian Affairs bureaucrats as a method to foster a calculating mentality amongst band members that would redirect political critique to bands, rather than the federal government.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".