MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061771107

Review of <i>Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools,Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada. </i>By PauletteRegan.

2012· article· en· W7061771107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingMetisMythologyIndigenousNarrativeAppropriationState (computer science)ContradictionConstruct (python library)Genocide
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian settler state has enacted egregious practices of assimilation, dispossession, and genocide against First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples throughout its history. Running contrary to these practices are the prevailing narratives found in Canadian historical texts and settler national myths. In Unsettling the Settler, Paulette Regan addresses this contradiction by analyzing the "peacemaker" myth, which she suggests is deployed by the state to construct a history of settler innocence. In light of this, any acknowledgment of historical injustices committed by Canada, such as Indian Residential School policies, is iteratively couched in the promise of reconciliation. Seeking to navigate the complex terrain of reconciliation in Canada, Regan's text is an important contribution to settler studies in Canada. Unsettling encourages settlers to revisit the problematic appropriation of terms such as warrior and peacemaker that have been grossly misrepresented in settler myths as a way to reframe Indigenous approaches to reconciliation. In doing so, Regan demonstrates how attitudinal shifts may engender new material realities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.022
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207