The Imperative to Reconcile: ‘Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s (2015) Report, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future, attests to the practices of cultural genocide that characterized the residential school experience for many of the Aboriginal children who were removed from their homes and sent to residential schools across the country. The history, legacy and policy context of the residential school era is well documented in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Report. The reader is privy to the activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as they evolved and were implemented throughout the country, as well as to the various detailed calls to action that serve as an outcome of the Report. It provides a comprehensive picture of the realities, turmoil, and harsh consequences that were a product of imperial policies meant to assimilate Aboriginal children and communities. One cannot help but be curious, however, about the extent to which the general public will embrace the calls to action set out in the Report since it was not the general public that brought the issue of residential schools to the public agenda to begin with. This is not to suggest that the response on the part of mainstream Canadians will be less than acceptable; instead, it serves to inquire about the ways the general public will frame their responses in light of what they value.
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 | 0.027 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".