Democracy and the Politics of Indigenous-Settler Reconciliation in Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter explores Indigenous-settler relationships in two former colonial settler states, Australia and Canada. The chapter highlights some of the democratic experiences of Indigenous peoples and offers an assessment of the efficacy of the reconciliation agenda that became necessary in the 21st century as a consequence of European colonization. In former setter colonies, owing to a series of Truth Commissions, there has been a call to reconcile the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the state. The chapter questions the prospects for reconciliation within the context of settler liberal democracies that still enforce discriminatory colonial laws and policies against Indigenous peoples. What does it say about the nature or design of democracy that these democratic states legally dispossess and dominate the lives of sovereigns? The chapter argues that liberal democracy in former settler colonies from its inception has been exclusionary and illiberal for non-white peoples generally and Indigenous peoples specifically. Liberal democracy as experienced by Indigenous peoples is not incompatible with group discrimination, dispossession, and state violence. It also suggests that since the reconciliation projects as proposed by those in power do not change the power dynamics of the settler state and keep discriminatory policies and laws intact, Indigenous peoples’ self-determination, the ultimate goal of reconciliation, is not likely. Simply put, democracy has failed Indigenous peoples in Australia and Canada and the reconciliation agenda will likely stall, leading Indigenous peoples to look beyond the settler state to reaffirm their self-determination and reclaim their lands.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".