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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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