RECONCILIATION IN TRANSLATION: INDIGENOUS LEGAL TRADITIONS AND CANADA’S TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key elements of reconciliation identified in the recent final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada [TRC] is the revitalization of Indigenous law and legal traditions. Indeed, the practices of the TRC itself have attempted to embody this principle. However, a concern about state-sponsored reconciliation is that the recognition of Indigenous legal traditions is an empty gesture without a robust engagement with them. This article offers one possible method for outsiders to engage with Indigenous traditions in a way that goes beyond lip service and beyond the limitations of superficial forms of recognition in which equivalence is too quickly assumed. By paying attention to the ways that Indigenous principles and practices are embedded in a network of ideas about the world, a picture of a whole “legal sensibility” emerges that, through comparison, shows the dominant legal sensibility to be one alternative among many. In this way, reconciliation is approached as a process of “unsettling” what is taken for 4granted in mainstream understandings of reconciliation and law.
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 | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".