Barriers to Engaging with Reconciliation in Canadian Education: Confusing Colonial and Western Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I examine truths and misunderstandings of colonization. An interrogation of the conflation between colonial and Western practices is explored through established literature and in practical examples of relationships to time, the Indian Act, and the term “Settler.” By first establishing accessible and shared definitions of reconciliation and colonization, common misconceptions and predictable pitfalls in Indigenous movements can be resolved. By attending to the confusion of terms the circle can be expanded ever so slightly to welcome more allies into the movement. Intentionally deceptive narratives position the work of reconciliation, or any social justice movement, as being anti-White and divisive. In the pursuit of equity and healing, it is essential to maintain the core values of care and dignity in methods of emancipation and resist succumbing to colonial tactics of delegitimizing any knowledge system, even those of our oppressors.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.067 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".