Settler-colonialism, social acceptance, and support for reparations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contexts of collective victimization such as settler colonialism in Canada, recognizing both historical and ongoing victimization, as well as supporting reparations measures, is crucial for healing the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and for propelling reconciliation efforts forward. While most non-Indigenous Canadians recognize the historical victimization of Indigenous peoples, fewer acknowledge ongoing victimization of Indigenous communities and support measures promoting their right to self-determination. The recognition of ongoing inequality can evoke feelings of guilt and pose a threat to the privileges of the advantaged groups, which may lead to minimizing and disregarding experiences of victimization of the disadvantaged group. While recognition of ongoing victimization can be uncomfortable, it is not impossible. According to the needs-based model, members of the advantaged group may be more willing to acknowledge the ongoing structural victimization and consider relinquishing their privileges if they receive social acceptance from members of the disadvantaged group. Using data ( n = 313) collected from an original survey, this paper examines if social acceptance by Indigenous peoples influences: (a) acknowledgment of ongoing victimization, (b) support for justice measures, and (c) recognition of Indigenous autonomy among non-Indigenous Canadians. The findings suggest that there is a positive relationship between social acceptance and both recognition of victimization and support for justice measures. However, no significant association was found between social acceptance and support for autonomy. These findings partially support the needs-based model, suggesting that social acceptance plays a limited role in promoting reconciliation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".