MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065961265 · doi:10.1068/d412

Anxious Reconciliation(s): Unsettling Foundations and Spatializing History

2004· article· en· W2065961265 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brenna Bhandar

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning D Society and Space · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyPoliticsContext (archaeology)TeleologyAssertionColonialismState (computer science)MythologyPolitical historySociologyPolitical scienceLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper I explore the relationship between law, history, and reconciliation in the Canadian context. I argue that linear, teleological forms of history are employed by courts to continually reiterate the myth of a legitimate assertion of colonial sovereignty. By doing so, any potential for political transformation that lies in the objective of reconciliation is stunted; political challenges brought in the form of aboriginal rights claims are folded back into the existing political, economic, and juridical structures of the nation-state. I conclude with an examination of how spatializing history in a nonlinear, nonteleological way could open up possibilities for political change and transformation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations34
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning D Society and SpaceSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207