Changing the Subject: The TRC, Its National Events, and the Displacement of Substantive Reconciliation in Canadian Media Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The findings and recommendations of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC, 2008–2015) offer Canadians and their public institutions an opportunity to better confront the ongoing injustice of their colonial relationship with Indigenous peoples, but this task requires also assessing the specific contributions of the TRC. The specific contribution in which this article is interested is the discourse of reconciliation that the commission has made Canada’s master keyword for debating Indigenous-settler relations. The article analyzes representations of reconciliation in the mainstream Canadian print media before and over the life of the commission, concluding that the commission during its national events did much to promote a relatively quiescent notion of reconciliation that in fact displaced conceptions with more substantive connotations of the return of land, jurisdiction, and resources. This finding has implications for how Canadians discuss reconciliation in the future and for the broader literature interested in the role of reconciliation discourse in truth commissions and other enterprises of transitional justice.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".