MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510601123 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v62i1.56203

Indian Residential Schools as Seen Through House of Commons Debates, 1876-1951

2016· article· en· W2510601123 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Danielle Lorenz

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHouse of CommonsCommonsSociologyPsychologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legally mandated in the 1884 amendment to The Indian Act (1876) by the Canadian federal government, the Indian Residential School (IRS) system forcibly removed at least 150,000 Indigenous children from their homes and communities, many of whom experienced physical, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of their "caregivers."The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (2015) conclusion that the Canadian government willfully engaged in cultural genocide while administering the IRS program suggests that the government purposefully endeavoured to cause harm to the children in its care.Considering the fastidious records kept by the federal government concerning Indigenous populations, their movement, and where they lived, it seems peculiar that they the Canadian government as a whole, but members of parliament in particular, were unaware of how Indigenous children were treated.The purpose of this brief paper is to demonstrate how Members of Parliament serving from 1876-1951 were a) aware of the deplorable conditions in Indian Residential Schools during the aforementioned period, and b) despite this knowledge, did nothing about it.In doing so, this paper will elucidate how the Canadian government willfully committed cultural genocide.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.370 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207