A Few Choice Words: Discourse, Decolonization and the Dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout its tenure, the Trudeau government has made public commitments to reform the relationship between Canada and Indigenous Peoples. In particular, the Trudeau government’s decision to dissolve Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and divide its mandate into two separate departments: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and the Department of Indigenous Services Canada has been framed as an avenue for decolonization. This paper seeks to determine, through an analysis of the new departmental changes, whether this reform exemplifies the federal government’s claims that it will facilitate decolonization and build an equitable relationship between the Canadian government and Indigenous Peoples. This study also analyzes the Trudeau government’s discourse using a critical discourse analysis to evaluate the rhetoric and intentions surrounding the federal government’s decision to dissolve INAC. From these analyses, it is evident that the dissolution of INAC does not coincide with the reconciliatory and decolonization discourse the federal government employs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".