Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1990s, there has been a global proliferation of discourses of political reconciliation. In Canada, major debates regarding the place of Quebec and Indigenous peoples in the federation have seen the concept of reconciliation being mobilized by different groups to address these key constitutional relationships. This is a complex development, as reconciliation is understood and used in widely varying ways depending on the political projects different actors seek to advance. While much recent scholarship has critically analyzed the divergence between Indigenous and state conceptions of reconciliation, there has been little comparative analysis that considers the deployment of the concept in both constitutional relationships. Many gaps also remain in accounting for the emergence of reconciliation as a political concept in Canada and in considering the implications of framing constitutional relationships through this ambiguous and widely contested term. This article addresses these gaps by drawing on an analysis of royal commission reports and Supreme Court decisions to explore the character of early appearances of the term as a political concept and to provide an initial sketch of the role the concept plays in Canadian politics by comparing its use with respect to constitutional relationships with Quebec and with Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".