MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Producing legitimacy: reconciliation and the negotiation of aboriginal rights in Canada

2007· article· en· W2042306585 on OpenAlex
Carole Blackburn

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Anthropological Institute · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConciliationTreatyLegitimationSovereigntyLegitimacyLawConstitutionPolitical sciencePoliticsSociologyEthnologyHumanitiesMediationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article explores two distinct meanings of reconciliation associated with the Nisga'a treaty in Canada. In the first, people are using reconciliation to mean correcting the mistakes of the past and creating a new relationship between aboriginal and non‐aboriginal Canadians. In the second, people use reconciliation to mean reconciling the constitutionally protected aboriginal rights of the Nisga'a with Canadian sovereignty and the presence of non‐aboriginal Canadian society. In this article I show that reconciliation in the first sense is a language of political legitimation that links the treaty with progress and the fulfilment of modern, enlightenment values. The second sense of reconciliation is more specific and involves making formerly incompatible rights compatible. I argue that by reconciling aboriginal rights with Canadian sovereignty the treaty does not repudiate the colonial insistence that aboriginal people conform to non‐aboriginal laws and institutions to the extent implied in the more celebratory uses of reconciliation. Résumé Le présent article explore deux significations distinctes de la réconciliation telles qu'elles sont associées à l'accord Nisga'a au Canada. Dans la première, la réconciliation prend le sens d'une correction des erreurs du passé et d'une création de nouvelles relations entre les Canadiens aborigènes et non aborigènes. Dans la deuxième, la réconciliation a le sens d'une conciliation entre les droits des aborigènes, en l'occurrence les Nisga'a, tels que les consacre la Constitution, d'une part, et la souveraineté canadienne et la présence d'une société canadienne non aborigène d'autre part. L'auteur montre ici que la réconciliation dans le premier sens est un langage de légitimation politique qui lie le traité au progrès et à la réalisation de valeurs modernes et éclairées. Le deuxième sens de la réconciliation est plus spécifique et implique que l'on rende compatibles des droits qui ne l'étaient pas jusqu'alors. Selon l'auteur, en conciliant les droits des aborigènes avec la souveraineté canadienne, le traité ne renonce pas à la volonté coloniale de plier les peuples aborigènes à des lois et institutions non aborigènes, tel que cela est impliqué dans les usages plus solennels de la réconciliation.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.295 · 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