Which Genocide Matters the Most? An Intersectionality Analysis of the Canadian Museum of Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.The Canadian Museum of Human Rights, scheduled to open in 2014, is envisioned as a place to learn about the struggle for human rights in Canada and internationally. Yet the museum has faced controversy because of the centrality of the Holocaust in the overall human rights story, prompting other groups whose nations and populations have experienced genocide to make demands that the museum provide equal treatment of other national and international atrocities. Through a feminist intersectionality lens, we examine this “Oppression Olympics,” whereby groups compete for the mantle of the most oppressed, as a case study of the problem with hierarchies of difference. Drawing on intersectionality theory, we ultimately provide an alternative lens and policy direction to the apparent impasse between competing communities. Résumé.Le Musée canadien pour les droits de la personne, dont l'ouverture est prévue en 2014, est envisagé comme un lieu d'apprentissage sur la lutte pour les droits humains au Canada et dans le monde. Cependant, le Musée a suscité la controverse en raison de l'accent qu'il met sur l'Holocauste dans l'histoire générale des droits de la personne, et il a incité d'autres groupes dont les nations et les populations ont connu le génocide à demander un traitement équitable d'autres atrocités nationales et internationales. Sous l'angle de l'intersectionnalité féministe, nous examinons ces « Jeux olympiques de l'oppression », dans lesquels des groupes concourent pour le titre de plus opprimé, comme une étude de cas du problème des hiérarchies de la différence. En s'appuyant sur la théorie intersectionnelle, nous fournissons une optique et une orientation politique alternative pour aborder l'impasse apparente entre des communautés concurrentes.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".