Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contemporary settler societies reconciliation has emerged as a potent and alluring form of Utopian politics. Across the globe, liberal democratic settler nations, generally resistant to formal processes of decolonization, have been compelled to make new and urgent political compacts between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples to address the legacy of violent pasts, stabilize the present, and imagine new national futures. In former colonies of British settlement, such as Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States of America, where Indigenous peoples and settlers grapple with the pernicious and ongoing effects of colonization, ‘reconciliation’ has become a political catch cry, and public projects for transformative change have been inaugurated in its name. Here, the Utopian politics of reconciliation emerge most powerfully in the realm of public performance and are greatly bound up in a culture and economy of affect, expressing the desire for virtuous compact, unity and redemption under the sign of nation. These affective performances take us into the space of the imaginary as we seek to create mythic covenants, but they also call on the violent past. And like all Utopian forms, the politics of reconciliation in settler societies, which demand consensus and often Indigenous volition, can be rejected. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
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".