Justifying the status quo while recognizing structural victimization: The challenge of reconciliation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reconciliation in Canada requires a deep societal transformation in which the majority population (non-Indigenous Canadians) not only recognizes the historic victimization of Indigenous peoples in Canada but also recognizes their ongoing structural victimization. However, members of the advantaged group may be reluctant to embrace change and give up their privileged position. According to System Justification Theory, people are motivated to justify the existing system (status quo) even when it produces socioeconomic inequities. In this paper, we examine the willingness of non-Indigenous Canadians ( n = 58) in the province of Quebec to recognize Indigenous victimization. We then explore their attitudes toward recognizing economic autonomy and ceding control over resources to Indigenous peoples. While most respondents claim to support the economic autonomy of Indigenous peoples, a qualitative analysis of their views on what should be done to improve the economic situation paints a more nuanced picture. Some participants support the self-determination of Indigenous peoples, and others support the maintenance of the colonial status quo, whether in the form of collaboration or total control from the state.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".