Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article asks how the focus on relationships within the emerging public discourse of reconciliation in Canada played out in Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission national events (2010–2014). In particular, the article describes the relationships engendered by the structure and staging of one of the TRC’s central forums for survivor testimony: the Commissioners Sharing Panel. I here examine several “relational” performances of reconciliation, both those that script the international significance of Canada’s reconciliation leadership and those that break away from the predetermined role of victim that the TRC’s testimonial forum presupposes. In light of important criticisms of the TRC that acknowledge its compromised spaces of “truth-telling,” I argue that to view them as exclusively co-optive denies residential school survivors and intergenerational survivors agency as anything more than victims.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".