MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392109391 · doi:10.1080/2201473x.2024.2319888

Tracing settler state responsibility for structural harm: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case on First Nations child welfare

2024· article· en· W4392109391 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSettler Colonial Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKoneen SäätiöHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsTribunalHuman rightsHarmPolitical scienceState responsibilityLawState (computer science)State of exceptionWelfareInternational human rights lawSociologyCriminologyLaw and economicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses ideas of causation and responsibility for long-term, structural harm perpetuated through settler colonial institutions. Examining the case of a human rights complaint over discrimination of First Nation children in Canada's child welfare system, the article looks at challenges of accommodating such complex harms in the framework of legal liability emphasizing immediate causation and impact. In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the federal government's funding policy of child welfare services on First Nation reserves leads to disproportionate removals of children from their homes, and in 2019 it ordered the government to financially compensate children and caregivers impacted. According to the government's defense no direct connection could be proved between the funding policy and the removals, and harm resulting from the removals could only be assessed individually. The article traces how the decisions challenge these arguments by extending the scope of the harm at stake from individual removals to historical and ongoing formation of circumstances that make them happen. Setting the case in the historical context of intergenerational harm caused to First Nation kin and community relations by colonial policies, I suggest, the decisions challenge discourses that locate responsibility for such harms in the past.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0890.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.336 · 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