Examination of the Reconciliation Movement in the Canadian Cultural Genocide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the mid-1880s to the 1980s, the Canadian government established a partnership with churches and aimed to "'civilize' and Christianize, and ultimately, assimilate Aboriginal people into the Canadian society" (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2008, 2).They forcibly separated Aboriginal children aged five to sixteen from their families and forced them to attend residential schools with the intent to destroy Aboriginal culture (MacDonald and Hudson 2012, 431).In 1920, the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs even argued that their goal was to get rid of Aboriginal culture in Canada by assimilating all of them (Miller 2004, 35).For that reason, residential schools did not allow indigenous parents to contact their children.The children were punished for speaking Aboriginal languages.Also, since there was no policy for discipline in these schools, the discipline was harsh (Miller 2004, 183).Verbal and physical abuse were very common in these residential schools, and sexual abuse was not uncommon.Since schools were hastily and cheaply built, diet and medical care were so poor for these children that many children also died from being sick (TRC 2008, 4).Furthermore, these schools did not inform parents even when their children died or ran away from school.Therefore, a significant number of Aboriginal children who attended residential
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".