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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it