Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it