MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974500811 · doi:10.1002/crq.175

Indian residential school survivors and state‐designed ADR: A strategy for co‐optation?

2007· article· en· W1974500811 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConflict Resolution Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidential schoolNeglectState (computer science)Government (linguistics)Principal (computer security)Political scienceSociologySocioeconomicsCriminologyEconomic growthPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The history of the Indian residential school system, which began officially in Canada in 1879, is marked by the persistent neglect and abuse of children and, as a result, of Aboriginal communities in general. The residential schools were an attempt to undermine the existence of Aboriginal communities and families. The federal government wanted Aboriginal people to assimilate into Canadian society. According to Duncan Campbell Scott, the principal architect of Indian residential school policy, “Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question and no Indian Department. … I want to get rid of the Indian problem” (Titley, 1986, p. 50). In many communities, every child between the age of five and eighteen was taken from his or her family and put in residential schools.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.306 · 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