The Royal Society of Canada and Colonialism: The Legacy of Duncan Campbell Scott
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was a landmark decision. In 2016, the Canadian Human RightsTribunal confirmed what First Nations had known for decades: the federal government's inequitable provision of public services was discriminatory on the grounds of race and national ethnic origin. 1 The Canadian government welcomed the ruling publicly but continued its longstanding pattern of inadequate measures, resulting in nineteen non-compliance and procedural orders and counting. 2One of the latest found Canada's discrimination to be "wilful and reckless" in a "worst case-scenario" contributing to the deaths of some children and the unnecessary family separations of many others. 3The Tribunal awarded the children and families victimized by Canada's conduct the maximum amount of compensation allowable under the Canadian Human Rights Act, $40,000 per victim.Canada filed for a judicial review of the Tribunal's decision, arguing that victims of systemic discrimination are not owed individual compensation and the funds required to compensate victims would amount to irreparable harm for Canada. 4anada's discrimination is deeply rooted in its history, its academia, and, indeed, in the Royal Society of Canada (rsc) itself.In his 1922 rsc presidential address, Duncan Campbell Scott lauded the organization's promotion of French and English scholarship.According to Scott, these would be the "first civilized languages heard by the natives of this country," 5 before he went on to say, "[T]he former story-telling function of History and the needless re-weaving of that tissue of tradition which surrounded and obscured the life of a people has given place to a higher conception of the duty of the xiv
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".