Middle States Geographer, 1997, 30: 1-10 INDUSTRIA, THE FOURTH WORLD, AND THE QUESTION OF TERRITORY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Fourth World Theory, the nation-based ana~vsis of contemporary geopolitics. and its practical manifestation in indigenous nationalist movements, carries with it profound implications for the territorial assumptions ofthe state system. Fourth World territoriality differs in important regards from the static boundaries which define states, and bears a strong resemblance to eco-geographical or bioregional imaginings ofpost-state territorial fom1S. In Bella Coola, Turtle Island (''North America "), the Nuxalk nation, occupying traditional, unceded telritory, has been one of the most vocal international proponents ofa Fourth World political approach. However, insufficient theorizing about the position of non-indigenous residents in contested territories, and the dependence of states upon the exploitation of resources from indigenous territories constitute significant hurdles to be overcome by the;\\'uxalk and other Fourth World nations in achieving some form ofsovereignty over ancestral lands. This paper engages the aforementioned issues, and shows that despite its perils, a carefu/~v articulated Fourth World position can pOint the way to ecological sustainability. Fourth World theory provides important lessons for those wishing to engage with the issues ofindigenous nationalism, bioregionalism. and a post-state world order. "boundaries " of Fourth World territories tend to follow bioregionallines. In this paper I argue that Fourth World nations, particularly those In what is now called "Canada", embrace land ethics and territorial conceptions Geography and geopolitics are at the centre of which could help wed environmental preservatIOn, the problematic relationship between the industrial state economic development, national determination and system, or what I call here "Industria", and the biosphere. human rights under the rubric of a neo-temtorial This relationship is so strained that even arguments as sovereignty. bizarre as Martin Lewis ' (1994) proposed "decoupling " The global "Fourth World " or indigenous of humanity from nature have received serious attention experience has profound implications for geographical
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.003 |
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".