Recognition and the case of indigenous reparations: a Habermasian critique of Habermas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the Quebec government announced in 2002 that it had signed the Peace of the Braves, a long-term agreement with the Cree nation that answered many indigenous claims over territory and resource sharing, the initial public response was muted. However, the opposition increased considerably when, a few months later, a second treaty was revealed, this time with the Innu nation, called the Agreement-in-principle. Unlike the Crees, who form the vast majority of the population on their territory, the Innus comprise a small minority on a territory mostly populated by non-indigenous. This may explain why one could hear, at the time of the Agreement-in-principle, so many individuals shocked by the fact that the resources of “their ” region had to be shared with indigenous peoples. They denounced what they believed were expropriation measures, partitioning of the land, depletion of common resources, and so on. They blamed the authorities for succumbing to the charms of multiculturalism in granting undeserved privileges to a minority. Yet these treaties do not grant undue privileges; on the one hand, they recognize indigenous nations as legitimate partners in the exploitation of natural resources, and on
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".