Perspectives on reconciliation, cultural identity and respect, and intergroup trust among University students in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) documented the harmful impact of the Indian Residential School system on Indigenous Peoples, their families, and communities across generations, and reconciliation efforts have been underway. Social psychologists have proposed two paths to conflict resolution and reconciliation: socioemotional, which restores identities damaged in the conflict, and instrumental, which alleviates distrust (Nadler & Schnabel, 2008). In a correlational pilot study (72 Indigenous, 90 non-Indigenous students), I examined the relationships among perceptions of reconciliation progress with the public and government, reconciliation attitudes, perceptions of cultural respect, intergroup trust, and well-being. In this thesis, I explored Indigenous and White students’ views toward these topics in greater depth in individual interviews (N = 13) which were guided by constructivist grounded theory methodology. Students’ cultural identity was related to remembering history, connecting to others, and engaging with culture. Indigenous students reported greater growth in cultural identity over their life, whereas White students’ cultural identity was less salient or associated with privilege. In discussing cultural respect, students spoke about themes such as connecting to others in a good way, responding to different views, challenging yourself, and emersion in culture. In influencing trust, students spoke about having a personal connection, support and action, learning to distrust, feeling secure and comfortable, and actively trusting. Students believed reconciliation involved changing relationships, understanding and responding to the past, was personally relevant, and involved making meaningful action. Despite seeing barriers, all students perceived progress toward reconciliation, and believed it would continue to advance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".