INTERSECTING DISCOURSES: CLOSING THE GAPS, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE TREATY OF WAITANGI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public policies are neither neutral nor static entities. Analysis reveals that the three arguments offered in support of the Closing the Gaps strategy – namely, “social justice”, Treaty of Waitangi and social cohesion – stem from distinct social justice discourses. This paper demonstrates how the interplay of these intersecting rationales is fraught with tension, ambiguity and contradiction. In particular, it is argued that a distributive “social justice ” discourse is inconsistent with the recognitive justice demands of Mäori as tangata whenua. The existence of discourses that contradict or modify each other reveals how social policies are continually constituted and reconstituted in different contexts. The tension between these intersecting discourses is also shown to correspond with a comparable dynamic involving the Treaty of Waitangi. Finally, the paper contends that the predominantly accommodative stance of the Closing the Gaps policy may well have the intent or effect of de-politicising a rightsdriven
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".