MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7092297271 · doi:10.11575/prism/50397

Confronting Epistemic Violence: The Kaurs' Resistance Against 1984

2025· other· en· W7092297271 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Feminist Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMitacs
KeywordsResistance (ecology)SilenceNarrativePoliticsEconomic JusticeErasureRepresentation (politics)Politics of memoryDiscourse analysisMemory work

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the epistemic erasure of Kaur’s (Sikh women) experiences of the Delhi Ghallughara in 1984, a state-enabled massacre of Sikhs in postcolonial India. Employing abductive analysis, three datasets were analysed: documentaries providing oral accounts of survivors and witnesses, archives of newspaper excerpts, and legal reports. Adopting the lens of Southern decolonial feminist framework rooted in Sikh epistemologies, Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) were implemented to explore: (1) the communal and gendered dimensions of 1984; (2) state-enabled structural silencing (3) how narratives have been re-narrated, through memory and epistemic erasure. Findings reveal that the Kaurs were not simply passive victims of communal violence, due to their gendered vulnerabilities, but they navigated immense violence with resistance and strategic silence. However, their testimonies remain underrepresented in newspapers, legal reports, and scholarly work. This paper argues that such erasure is not incidental, but rather systemically reinforced by cultural and patriarchal norms that intersect with political and institutional hierarchies. By centring the voices of Kaurs of 1984 and representing their stories, this study challenges dominant modes of knowledge production and calls for feminist reparative justice by legitimising their epistemologies and challenging systems that continue to silence them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicGender and Feminist StudiesFrench-language works237,207