Place(ing) Relations, Embodying Intentions: A Decolonial Feminist Ethnography of Archival Praxis Among Indigenous and South Asian Artists and Curators in So-Called Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within escalating conditions of settler colonial violence, Indigenous and South Asian artists and curators in so-called Canada are creating living archives through embodied practices that refuse colonial logics while generating alternative modes of survival and relation. Drawing on autoethnographic reflection and sustained ethnographic engagement between 2022-2024, I argue Indigenous and South Asian diasporic artists and curators enact decolonial feminist archival praxis to create living, embodied counter-archives grounded in place-based accountability that reveals how cultural practice becomes technologies of resistance within ongoing occupation. As a Bengali-Persian refugee-citizen, I offer শুধু নিয়ত| shudho niot (heartfelt intentions) as methodology, rooted in Islamic philosophy and transformed through accountability to Indigenous sovereignty. I develop key concepts: diasporic mimetic archives, examining Farheen HaQ's transformation of South Asian Muslim wedding rituals into land-based protocols; sovereign ordinariness and archival afterlives, embodied in Christine Toulouse's quillwork practice embracing decay as continuance and asserting Indigenous temporal sovereignty; and cross-cultural-collaborative archival praxis, which informs Naveen Girn and Alanna Edwards' respective place-based curation. These practices operate through asymmetrical parallelity, acknowledging fundamental differences between racialized settler and Indigenous experiences while creating accountable relations across difference. I advance critiques of Asian settler colonialism by offering models for accountable practice, contribute methodological frameworks that ground decolonial theory in embodied practice, and reveal how intimate refusals maintain cultural sovereignty while navigating institutional demands. This dissertation shows how artists and curators are creating alternatives grounded in place-based accountability and care-centered protocols, demonstrating archives as technologies for collective survival and liberation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".