Towards Reconciliation? - An analysis of post-colonial structures within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has a long history of colonialism that ended in 1867. Before and after this the Indigenous peoples have been the target of several assimilation strategies, the most famous being the Indian Residential Schools system. To deal with its legacy, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was set up. Critique has been directed towards the commission for failing to deal with unequal power structures in society within its work but rather having a victim-centered work focusing on their stories. This has led to the goal of reconciliation being affected as well. This paper has looked for post-colonial structures within the final report of the commission by analyzing three aspects: how the commission name/label the Indigenous peoples, if an Indigenous or Western perspective is dominant in its work, and how the relationship between different Indigenous and non-Indigenous governmental bodies looks like. It has also looked at how this has affected the commission’s work towards reconciliation, both from its own definition and from others. The findings of the research are that the work of the commission has been affected by the post-colonial structures in Canada within all three aspects and that this has negatively affected the work towards reconciliation.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".