Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we trace and track the ways in which Filipinxs in the diaspora in British Columbia mobilize conceptions and claims of Indigeneity. We argue that this race to indigeneity is enacted through situating diasporic Filipinx-ness in relation to the Philippine nation-state and its colonial histories and through acts of accessing of indigenous ways of being as part of diasporic subject positioning. We argue that these practices pose problems for conceptualizing the geography of Filipinx diasporic politics vis-a-vis British Columbia, and the Canadian nation-state more broadly. Through examples drawn from our embeddedness in and engagement with Filipino Canadian communities on Coast Salish territories, we point to three vexations of this race to indigeneity. First, the invocation of “Indigenous” as a “homing device” offers a way of situating oneself vis-a-vis certain idea(l)s of Filipinx homeland and culture, but one that, we caution, reduces indigeneity to certain sensory signs (sights, sounds, and smells) that can serve to essentialize and objectify what it means to do and be “Indigenous” in the diaspora. Second, and especially salient in relation to the racial politics of queer geographies, we argue that it is crucial to query the basis of these diasporic claims to Indigenous queerness as a way of thinking through the very construction of indigeneity itself. Third, we point to the fact that diasporic claims to indigeneity in the settler colonial context of British Columbia are a reminder of Filipinxs’ statuses as participants, as diasporic subjects, in longer histories of Indigenous dispossession, including on Coast Salish territories. This offers an opening towards a collective examination of accountability, of allegiances to particular geopolitical orders and the possibilities of complex solidarities with peoples on whose lands the diasporas take place.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".