Cultural Genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Canada: A Legal and Socio-Political Analysis of the Limits of Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residential Schools constituted one of the most emblematic examples of the discrimination suffered by Indigenous Peoples in Canada. From the 1880s until the late 20th century, Residential Schools aimed to assimilate Indigenous children into the dominant Western culture, dismantling diverse indigenous cultures and traditional livelihoods. As a response to the increasing number of testimonies about the horrific nature of the Residential School System in Canada, in 2004, the Assembly of First Nations confronted the Federal government and issued a report in which it called for the payment of reparations and a truth and reconciliation process. In 2007, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement provided for the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which published its Final Report in 2015, after the election of Justin Trudeau’s government. Since then, reconciliation in Canada has entered a new phase, which mainly revolves around an official admission of indigenous cultural genocide and the so-called 94 "Calls to Action." This paper adopts legal and socio-political perspectives to explain why the recent Canadian admission of cultural genocide cannot be considered a model in the acknowledgment and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. This is because the Canadian admission of genocide is unable to produce significant legal effects. However, although the resonance of this admission can be better described as political, even from the socio-political perspective, the Canadian process toward reconciliation presents many flaws. Indeed, the 94 Calls do not currently meet indigenous structural needs, fueling dissatisfaction, and non-indigenous acknowledgment of indigenous discrimination remains underdeveloped.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".