MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156877747 · doi:10.1017/s000842391200039x

The Genocide Question and Indian Residential Schools in Canada

2012· article· en· W2156877747 on OpenAlexaffabout
David B. MacDonald, Graham Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCambodian History and Society
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideCommitPolitical scienceLawCriminologyPosition (finance)ConventionSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been investigating the array of crimes committed in Canada's Indian Residential Schools. Genocide is being invoked with increasing regularity to describe the crimes inflicted within the IRS system, the intent behind those crimes, and the legacies that have flowed from them. We ask the following questions. Did Canada commit genocide against Aboriginal peoples by attempting to forcibly assimilate them in residential schools? How does the UN Genocide Convention help interpret genocide claims? If not genocide, what other descriptors are more appropriate? Our position might be described as “fence sitting”: whether genocide was committed cannot be definitively settled at this time . This has to do with polyvalent interpretations of the term, coupled with the growing body of evidence the TRC is building up. We favour using the term cultural genocide as a “ground floor” and a means to legally and morally interpret the IRS system. Résumé. La Commission de vérité et réconciliation a enquêté sur la matrice de crimes commis dans les pensionnats indiens au Canada. Le mot génocide est invoqué avec une régularité croissante pour décrire les crimes infligés au sein du système des pensionnats, l'intention derrière ces crimes, et l'héritage qui s'en est ensuivie. Nous posons les questions suivantes: le Canada a-t-il commis le génocide contre les élèves Aborigènes en essayant de les assimiler de force dans des pensionnats indiens? Comment la Convention des Nations Unies sur la prévention de génocide peut-elle aider interprétations des revendications de génocide ? Si ce pas de génocide, quel autre descripteur est plus approprié ? Notre position pourrait être décrite comme « séance de clôture »: la question de génocide ne peut être réglée définitivement en ce moment . Cela concerne les interprétations polyvalentes du terme, couplé avec le corps grandissant d'évidence que le CVR accumule. Nous préférons le terme génocide culturel comme « un rez-de-chaussée » et comme un moyen de légalement et moralement interpréter le système IRS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0350.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicCambodian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207