A critical engagement with Nancy Fraser’s theory of bivalent justice : implications for the BC Treaty Commission process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores Nancy Fraser's reconceptualization of the relationship between claims for recognition and redistribution through an analysis of her theory of bivalent justice. Her framework is applied to the B C Treaty Commission process to assess its usefulness. This thesis also critically engages with two of the provincial Liberal government's principles for negotiating treaties with First Nations: first, the provincial government refuses to negotiate compensation for the wrongful infringements of First Nations' rights and second, self-government is recognised as a form of local government with delegated powers. In applying Fraser's theory of bivalent justice, which includes the core normative principle of participation parity and a model of status subordination, it is evident that the provincial government's mandate is inconsistent with the type of justice Fraser envisages. Rather, not only should compensation be part of the treaty process, but also, self-government should be negotiated as an inherent right, not as a right delegated from the federal and provincial government. There are, however, two other important challenges to the provincial government's mandate: first, from those First Nations who assert that the inherent right to self-government exists beyond the framework of the Canadian Constitution. The second challenge arises from an analysis of the trends of privatization. Such a critique exposes how the provincial government appropriates the objective of self-government for First Nations and represents it as being "municipal-like" in nature. Finally, I conclude that these discursive trends of privatization may expose an important limitation to Fraser's theory. That is, these discursive practices inhibit the implementation of transformative remedies that are crucial for working towards the type of justice Fraser proposes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".