MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385983543 · doi:10.5840/cssr20232814

Reparations for Truth

2023· article· en· W4385983543 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brett G. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueCatholic Social Science Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawNatural (archaeology)FeelingHistoryPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsSociologyPhilosophyArchaeologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is much bad feeling, both real and cultivated, circulating these days between peoples of European decent, and peoples of Native American (both North and South America) descent, especially with regard to recent discoveries of historical events which occurred at schools run by American and Canadian authorities, as well as by the Catholic Church. Such scandals have hampered ongoing reconciliation efforts, and led to accusations of the existence of a concerted program of abuse and subjugation on the part of the Catholic Church. This article explores the issue, by way of a careful examination of the history of natural law thinking, as well as the formal statements of the popes regarding the actions of Europeans in the New World. While not glossing over historical misdeeds, it concluded that papal statements, articulated in the natural law tradition, were consistent in their condemnation of slavery and misuse of native peoples. They were also, sadly, ignored. The author concludes that a better understanding of natural law ideas is needed, both to understand the past, as well as to provide a method of reconciliation and moving forward, for the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.040
Scholarly communication0.0140.021
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0120.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatholic Social Science ReviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207