Embracing reconciliation in the face of adversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter uses an intersectional perspective to understand reconciliation as it relates to land, immigration, and anti-racist education. As immigrant women from the United States and Kenya, the authors recognize that privileges are bestowed upon newcomers to Canada that have been historically denied to many Indigenous peoples. The chapter uses intersectionality to examine their relations to land, social and economic practices, environment, and more-than-human beings, and how these relations can contribute to the process of reconciliation and solidarity with Indigenous peoples. Many immigrants come to Canada seeking the Canadian Dream, and many of those newcomers are willing and able to pursue that dream. Many immigrants do not see racism towards Indigenous peoples as affecting them because they are not Indigenous. Since the civil rights era in the United States and the election of a Black president, many people have “post-race” ideologies that reinforce the notion of meritocracy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".