MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095985681

Towards Reconciliation? - An analysis of post-colonial structures within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

2020· article· en· W3095985681 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hanna Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionColonialismIndigenousWork (physics)Political scienceSociologyLawEngineeringEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207