MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954057586 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1359

Land Acknowledgment, Scripting and Julius Caesar

2019· article· en· W2954057586 on OpenAlex
Jeffery Hewitt

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityCanadian Mennonite UniversityUniversity of ManitobaHarvard University
KeywordsHonourOppressionConstitutionPresentation (obstetrics)Supreme courtPolitical scienceLawSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay follows my presentation at Osgoode’s 21st Constitutional Cases Conference on the growing practice of land acknowledgments, honour and the legacy of now retired Chief Justice McLachlin. During the presentation, I examined some of the Supreme Court of Canada’s constitutional cases arising out of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, along with the practice of land acknowledgments in academic spaces. What follows is an essay critically examining scripted land acknowledgments mainly from post-secondary institutions in Canada. Are land acknowledgments contributing to Canada’s national reconciliation project as so often purported? I consider whether the practice is becoming too comfortable rather than challenging colonization and oppression, which should be uncomfortable. Throughout I offer some reflections on how to evolve the growing practice of land acknowledgments to “version 2.0”.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it