Indigenous Women's Activism in Press: New Breed as a Grassroots Outlet for Expressing Indigenous Women's Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay I focus on the relationship between the “by the community, for the community” style publication of New Breed magazine and Indigenous women’s activism. To answer my research question, I utilize issues of the magazine published during the 1970s and 1980s to demonstrate the value of a write in style publication for the expansion of Indigenous women’s political voices. I draw upon the political climate of the time to help provide further information on the expansion of Indigenous political activism during this time, and the way that this activism was largely male dominated. Discrimination towards Indigenous peoples within North America helped prompt the creation of groups such as the American Indian Movement and the National Indian Brotherhood. The mobilization of Indigenous women’s groups such as Indian Rights for Indian Women and the Native Women’s Association of Canada also grew from the discrimination faced by Indigenous women, even within their own communities. The publication style of New Breed allowed Indigenous women’s voices to be heard on a large scale, giving them a place to speak out and form activist groups. Indigenous women’s activism is also expressed within New Breed through the advertisement of material culture, referred to in New Breed as “handicraft.” The advertisement of handicraft in New Breed includes things such as profiles of local women-run businesses as well as calls for women to join sewing circles and classes. This essay argues that New Breed is a grassroots outlet that uses its “by the community, for the community” mandate to support and facilitate Indigenous women’s activism through the advertisement of women’s handicraft. The advertisements for handicraft throughout the magazine are important to the growth of Indigenous women’s activism and hold the same level of importance as any other political contributions featured within the magazine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".