“Truth-telling” and Legal Discourse: A Critical Analysis of the Neil Stonechild Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Employing a critical race methodology focused on the notion of law as a hegemonic form of truth telling, I examine the findings and recommendations of the commission of inquiry into the death of Neil Stonechild to show how certain stories were told (or not) through legal narratives, and how, in such a judicial forum, specific narratives were framed as more legitimate than others. This forum reproduces colonial assumptions of the Aboriginal “other,” as deserving less priority in the realm of justice and the Aboriginal voice as illegitimate compared to legal actors, thereby weakening notions of equal access to justice in Canada. I argue that the Neil Stonechild inquiry, while important, falls short in advancing justice by failing to address underlying racial factors and motivations, thereby providing an incomplete picture of what happened. As a consequence, the dominant mythology of Canada as a non-racist nation remains unchallenged, to the detriment of meaningful social change. Résumé.À l'aide d'une méthodologie critique de la race axée sur la notion du droit comme façon hégémonique de dire la vérité, j'examine les conclusions et les recommandations de la commission d'enquête sur la mort de Neil Stonechild afin de montrer comment certaines histoires ont été racontées (ou pas) grâce au récit juridique et comment, dans un tel forum judiciaire, on a accordé une légitimité plus grande à certains récits. Ce forum reprend les suppositions coloniales sur «l'autre» autochtone, qui mériterait une priorité moindre dans le domaine de la justice, et sur la voix autochtone, qui serait illégitime comparativement à celle des acteurs juridiques, affaiblissant de ce fait les notions d'égalité d'accès à la justice au Canada. Je soutiens que l'enquête sur Neil Stonechild, bien qu'importante, ne réussit pas à faire avancer la justice, car les enquêteurs ne sont pas parvenus à aborder les facteurs et les motivations raciaux sous-jacents, donnant ainsi une image incomplète de ce qui s'est passé. Par conséquent, la mythologie dominante voulant que le Canada ne soit pas une nation raciste demeure incontestée, au préjudice d'un changement social significatif.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".