MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966275155 · doi:10.3138/utlj.2499

Residential schools, respect, and responsibilities for past harms

2014· article· en· W1966275155 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John Borrows

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsAssembly of First Nations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousScope (computer science)Active listeningPoliticsPublic relationsPolitical scienceRelation (database)SociologyEnvironmental ethicsLaw and economicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is difficult to accept the idea that we may be responsible for harms caused by other people. This article acknowledges challenges faced in this regard in relation to so-called responsibilities for harms suffered by Indigenous peoples in Residential Schools. Recognizing that there are real issues with the scope, cost, fairness, and appropriateness of ways of addressing these harms, this article discusses the role of Indigenous legal and political traditions in discussing this issue. It suggests that we can find more nuanced, subtle, and respectfully engaged ways of listening and responding to one another when the considering responsibilities we may or may not have to our fellow citizens.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207