Telling Stories about Conflict: Symbolic Politics and the Ipperwash Land Transfer Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Direct protest actions by Indigenous peoples in Canada have rarely yielded the specific gains that were targeted. In the aftermath of conflict, Canadian governments have typically proven to be intransigent. An exception to this general tendency is the Anishinabek occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park, which began in 1995. In 2007, the government of Ontario agreed to return the parkland to the First Nation, making it an unusually successful instance of direct action. It is argued here that this outcome can best be explained by drawing on the “symbolic politics” theory of intergroup conflict. The Ipperwash inquiry, acting as a post-conflict truth commission, generated a micro-narrative shared by both groups, which altered the political incentive structure and enabled the outlier accommodative outcome. Résumé.Les actions de protestation directe par les peuples autochtones du Canada ont rarement donné les résultats recherchés. Au lendemain d'un conflit, les gouvernements canadiens se sont généralement montrés intransigeants. L'occupation du Parc provincial d'Ipperwash par les Anishinabek, qui débuta en 1995, représente toutefois une exception à cette tendance générale. Le gouvernement ontarien a accepté, en 2007, de retourner les territoires du parc à cette première nation, ce qui en fait un des rares cas où l'action directe a porté fruit. L'article soutient que c'est en s'appuyant sur la théorie de la politique symbolique des conflits intergroupes qu'il est possible d'expliquer ce résultat. Agissant comme une commission de vérité et de réconciliation, la Commission d'enquête sur Ipperwash a généré un récit commun, partagé par les deux groupes. En changeant la structure d'incitatifs politiques, ce récit explique l'étonnant résultat d'accommodement qui en est ressorti.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".