Making Kin / Unmaking the Colony: Indigenous Refusal in the Era of Colonial Child Removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s primary “call to action” is to reduce the number of Indigenous children in out-of-home care in this country. Yet, Indigenous children continue to be apprehended into the child welfare system at rates three times higher than at the peak of the Indian Residential School period (1831-1996). Though there is increasing research on the negative impacts of child removal on Indigenous children, families, and communities there is less research that records and analyzes existing community-based and institutional strategies that prevent, resist, or refuse child welfare interventions broadly and child removal specifically. In partnership with Indigenous caregivers on Vancouver Island, and using a combination of ethnographic and participatory action research methodologies, my dissertation aims to answer one key question: In the context of ongoing and disproportionate colonial child removal, how do Indigenous peoples make and maintain kin? This dissertation foregrounds Indigenous scholarship on refusal, resistance, and resurgence, as well as anthropological analyses of kinship and relationality to answer this question, demonstrating how Indigenous communities reconstitute ancestral care roles, resist colonial extraction, build relational solidarities, and affirm their self-determination despite ongoing colonial interference into the realm of the family. By focusing on Indigenous peoples’ resistance and resilience within the system, this research talks back to a problematic narrative of Indigenous victimhood, illuminating the creative and strategic ways Indigenous caregivers and providers sustain kin both within and on the margins of the settler state.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".