Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the phenomenon of reconciliation in the context of settler states (e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, etc.). It takes the position that reconciliation is necessary in these states because they are the products of a particular form of historic injustice (i.e. settler state colonialism), which continues to poison the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens. The aim of the article is to outline three key features that would be necessary for the construction of a satisfactory, detailed account of Indigenous-non-Indigenous reconciliation in settler states. The first feature is that such an account must be sensitive to the background context of settler state colonialism, which sometimes requires Indigenous people to turn away from non-Indigenous peoples, and sometimes supports Indigenous-non-Indigenous engagement and cooperation. The second feature is that the account of reconciliation must include the promotion of trust and trustworthiness, and illustrate how settler states can bring this about. The third feature is that the account should employ a duty-centric discourse instead of rights-talk when the concern is Indigenous-non-Indigenous reconciliation. While this article does not offer a comprehensive theory of reconciliation in settler states, it puts forward that these three features are first, but necessary steps for constructing such a theory.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".