Responding to Settler Colonialism in the Community Archive: Jewish Approaches to Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how Canadian Jewish community archives are responding to and engaging with reconciliation. Reconciliation, which entered national public discourse largely through the activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), is a process that restores or repairs relationships between settler society and Indigenous peoples. Based on a survey of nine archives, I identify how Jewish organizations are responding to the TRC, critically engaging with Canada’s ongoing history of settler colonialism, and building relationships with Indigenous nations. Canadian Jewish archives do this in various ways: Formal statements of reconciliation; presenting history in a way that includes Indigenous peoples and illuminates settler colonialism; acknowledging Indigenous peoples, lands, and treaties; programming that builds relationships or facilitates dialogue; and decolonizing or Indigenizing projects related to archival collections. I demonstrate that Canadian Jewish archives have begun to engage with reconciliation in substantial ways, although many of these responses are still nascent. Furthermore, the majority of these practices focus on educating Jewish audiences rather than building relationships with Indigenous communities, thus signalling the need for more collaborative approaches. Approaching reconciliation in a way that is rooted in the history and experiences of a particular settler group, rather than the premise of state supremacy, may be a productive way to avoid the colonial politics of recognition and facilitate social change in the place now called Canada.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".