The case for and causes of intraminority solidarity in support for reparations: Evidence from community and student samples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In three studies, we examined how racial/ethnic majority (i.e., White) and non-Indigenous minority participants in Canada responded to reparations for Indigenous peoples in Canada. Our goal was to understand whether and why there may be intraminority solidarity in this context. In Study 1, with a large, national survey (N = 1,947), we examined the extent to which participants agreed the government should be responsible for addressing human rights violations committed by previous governments as well as whether the government has done enough to address the wrongs committed against Indigenous peoples in Canada. With a sample of undergraduate students in Study 2 (N = 144) and another community sample in Study 3 (N = 233), we examined possible mediators of the relationship between ethnic status and support for reparations. Taken together, the results of three studies suggest that, compared to White majority Canadians, non-Indigenous minority Canadians were more supportive of providing reparations to Indigenous peoples through a complex chain of collective victimhood, inclusive victim consciousness, continued victim suffering, and solidarity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".