"Reaching out Across their Borders in Many Directions": Indigenous Print Journalism Networks and Borderlands Activism, 1969-1975
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores the activist work of Indigenous media creators and consumers in North America’s prairie borderlands in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It argues that print media were important tools for transnational Indigenous sovereignty work during this time of political and social upheaval in Canada and the United States. Scholars have been attentive to the ways that direct-action protest as well as domestic and international advocacy organizations pushed for Indigenous rights in the 1960s and 1970s. Absent from much of this literature is a consideration of how borders (settler- and Indigenous-made) shaped Indigenous activism. Using borderlands and media studies approaches, this study shows how creating, disseminating, and reading print media (newspapers, magazines, and newsletters) facilitated cross-border connections, centred Indigenous geographies, and promoted solidarity between Indigenous nations in anticolonial activist work. I examine both the content of these publications and their systems of production and circulation, highlighting how Indigenous editors and journalism advocates worked to create Indigenous media networks. This study also explores the limits of cross-border action, revealing occasions when media creators and consumers strategically aligned themselves with settler state interests while pushing for Indigenous political autonomy. This dissertation proves that Indigenous journalists were active participants in a long and ongoing movement for Indigenous rights and sovereignty, using the strengths of print media to work towards these goals. Doing so was not a simple task, however, and this history emphasizes the complexities of geography, nationhood, and political power in an era of anticolonial action.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".