MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canadian Genocide and Official Culpability

2010· article· en· W2051223242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zia Akhtar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Criminal Law Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCulpabilityTribunalLawRedressGenocidePolitical scienceHuman rightsSociologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the last 20 years the native people of Canada have asserted their sovereignty by rejecting their status as wards. Their subordination had caused removal of their children to boarding schools to remerge as imitation white adults. It involved the purging of their own culture, including language, names and religious symbols. There is now evidence that there were thousands of preventable deaths in these schools, because the conditions were criminally negligent and the teaching was backed up by corporal punishment. In response to these allegations the Canadian government has set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but it lacks any investigative or punitive powers. As it has no right to compel witnesses, the First Nations have established their own International Human Rights Tribunal into Genocide in Canada (IHRTGC). This has the objective of presenting evidence to the United Nations in order for a court to be empowered on lines of an international tribunal investigating crimes of ethnic cleansing to try the officials of the government and the Churches. Will the redress the IHRTGC is seeking stand the test of evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the accused? Can the appropriation and abuse of aboriginal children be abated? What kind of compensation will be payable once guilt has been proved?

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Criminal Law ReviewSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207