Writing our Wrongs: 'Justness', Accountability, and Transparency in Provincial Child Death Inquiries in the Context of Neoliberal Settler Colonialism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the child death inquiry as a performative ritual of liberaldemocratic governance in the contexts of ongoing settler colonialism and the implementation of New Public Management in Canadian public policy.I ask: what is the performative work of public inquiries in constituting political relationships in contemporary Canada?I situate the child death inquiry as a particular form of public inquiry shaped by settler affective responses to Indigenous child deaths and assembled by contradictory logics that emphasize the universal generalizability of Indigenous loss, while articulating a specific and targeted anger with liberal, democratic governments, who ought to be accountable to their taxpaying-settler-publics.I trace the movement of figures as they are re/produced in the inquiry process: the 'Indigenous Public Child', the taxpayer-citizen and the benevolent settler public, and the ir/responsible government.I then consider how these relationships are produced, contested, and reaffirmed, as well as what kinds of impacts, concerns, and possibilities exist in the political spaces and relationships produced.I demonstrate how the dispositif of the child death inquiry moves from organizing hegemonic forms of visibility (through mainstream media), structuring the vocabulary of problematization (through legislative debate), establishing normative 'solutions' (through public reports), and articulating 'progress'(through policy commitments).The shift to private-sector-infused managerialism as a proposed solution to the contradictions of settler colonialism reflects a transformation from justice (as a political demand) to justness (as a technocratic form of 'resolution' and a commitment to continuous self-improvement).
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".