<scp>I</scp>gnorance and historical geographies of Aboriginal exclusion: Evidence from the 2007 Bouchard‐<scp>T</scp>aylor Commission on Reasonable Accommodation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ignorance is linked to colonialism and is deeply implicated in the maintenance of unequal social relations. The authors theorize ignorance as structural and self‐interested, and undertake a geographically sensitive analysis of Quebec's 2007 Bouchard‐Taylor Commission to demonstrate how ignorance of Aboriginal realities works strategically to sustain unequally occupied rhetorical and material space. The Bouchard‐Taylor Commission was a public inquiry into Quebec citizens' opinions on the degree to which cultural difference should be accommodated in the province. Through both geographic decisions about where to hold public meetings and in its very mandate, the Commission restricted participation to Quebecers of French‐Canadian descent and immigrants of long and more recent standing. The authors analyze how the law, and ignorance of how it applies to Aboriginal peoples, was mobilized by the Commissioners to create a space from which Aboriginal peoples could be excluded, and highlight the continuity of this strategy with past debates over Quebec identity. The case of the Bouchard‐Taylor Commission demonstrates how ignorance operates in highly sophisticated and often readily justifiable ways to uphold settler interests.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".