Moving Beyond Rhetoric: Working Toward Reconciliation Through Self-Determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The settlement of the residential school system class action and the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada have renewed discussions on the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown as part of achieving reconciliation. This article argues that promoting reconciliation in Canada requires addressing the underlying issue that led to the residential school system: the unilateral imposition of colonial law with the goal of assimilating Indigenous peoples. The best way to prevent such actions in the future requires realizing Indigenous peoples right to self-determination. The U.N. Declaration, with its recognition of Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, provides a framework that can be used to work toward reconciliation and reset the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown. Le reglement du recours collectif dans le dossier des pensionnats indiens et la creation de la Commission de verite et de reconciliation relative aux pensionnats indiens (CVR) du Canada ont ranime les discussions sur la relation entre les peuples autochtones et l’Etat en vue d’une reconciliation. L’auteure avance que la promotion de la reconciliation au Canada exige la resolution des problemes sous-jacents qui ont mene a la creation du systeme de pensionnats indiens: l’imposition unilaterale par l’Etat de la loi coloniale dans le but d’assimiler les peuples autochtones. La meilleure facon d’empecher que de telles situations se reproduisent est de comprendre le droit des peuples autochtones a l’autodetermination. La Declaration des Nations Unies et sa reconnaissance du droit a l’autodetermination des peuples autochtones offre un cadre qui peut etre utilise pour arriver a la reconciliation et pour renouer la relation entre les peuples autochtones et l’Etat.
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 | 0.051 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.112 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".