Reconciling Reconciliation: Differing Conceptions of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the concept of "reconciliation" as it is utilized in two fora: the Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the legacy of the “Indian residential schools” (TRC). The concept’s development in the Court’s jurisprudence, as compared to the scholarly literature of transitional justice, warrants careful consideration. The Court has used the term in decisions seeking to balance assertions of Indigenous sovereignty in the context of Canadian colonialism. However, this concept of reconciliation is quite different from that which has entered Canadian discourse from the TRC. The author suggests that the vision of reconciliation enunciated by the TRC as a mutual process to be engaged in by Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples alike would be a more just conception to adopt.
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 | 0.034 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.107 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| 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".