Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question facing Canada at and after its sesquicentennial is how to achieve a just reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the political community of Canada.I think there are two views on reconciliation: one sees us on the path towards it, awkwardly yet not devoid of grace; and another sees Canada continuing on the same old path with no reconciliation at its end, esthetics in movement notwithstanding.We need not assume that anyone who holds either view is acting in bad faith.Both may be acting sincerely according to their definitions of what reconciliation is and what it requires.But if that is true, then they hold different definitions.I use this definition of reconciliation: the act of making one thing compatible with another.Reconciliation in this basic sense is about resolving two things understood to be in conflict.The definition says precisely nothing about the nature of the conflict or its potential resolution.Reconciliation is silent on whether A moves towards B's position where B holds firm, whether B moves towards A's position where A holds firm, or whether both A and B move to meet somewhere in the middle in a pattern of mutual adjustment.The story of mutual adjustment is intuitively pleasing: both parties unsettle themselves to some degree in order to achieve moderation and signal mutual regard.Underlying this intuition is the pleasing assumption that justice lies somewhere between them.How are we to think about the scenarios where adjustment is unidirectional?This also depends on where we assume justice lies.If B holds the just position, then A should unsettle itself.Any movement by B towards A would decrease conflict, and hence move toward reconciliation -but at the steep cost of justice.In the simplest case, A and B have a shared understanding of where justice lies, and the main 15 Reconciliation with a Question Mark:Three Moments christa scholtz
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 | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".