Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telling Harm: Time, Redress, and Canadian Literature Benjamin Authers “Redress” has become the exemplary means by which claims for breaches of the rights of minority groups by the state are articulated in Canada. In the past three decades, redress processes have seen government apologies and remedies offered for acts including the forced removal and abuse of children under the Indian residential school system, the discriminatory “Head Tax” imposed on Chinese migrants, and the internment of Japanese Canadians in the Second World War. Defined as “[a] discursive formation frequently organized around the pursuit of reparations for specifiable historical injuries and for reconciliation of social divides framed as stemming from those injuries,” redress has been an at-times productive space for the activism of minoritized groups seeking recognition and remedy for particular government acts and policies (Henderson and Wakeham, Reconciling Canada 6)
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".