Investigating Reconciliation: A study into the decolonial potential of Reconciliation projects in the Canadian academic literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis analyses and provides insight on the problem of dissonance in the Canadian reconciliation literature.Reconciliation touches legal, political, sociological, economical, and other contexts where it "fluctuates in its meaning" (Grafton and Melancon, 2020: 140).Experts in the field address this dissonance by including perspectives of the concept in a dialogical basketweaving process (Tully and Burrows, 2018: 11), where the limits of each perspective are carefully analysed and debated.This thesis contributes to the basket weaving process by analyzing the reconciliation literature from the perspective of the decoloniality theoretical model (Quijano, Mignolo, Walsh), a perspective that has seldom been used in the Canadian context.Importantly, this model identifies structures through which coloniality operates -namely the Eurocentric control over Knowledge, Governance, Economy and Humanity and the simultaneous disavowals of Indigenous alternatives.The results identify conceptions of reconciliation that are inconsistent with decolonization and proposes next steps for the basket weaving process, an important input to address the problem of dissonance.Cette thèse analyse et fournit des éclaircissements sur le problème de la dissonance dans la littérature canadienne sur la réconciliation.La réconciliation touche des contextes juridiques, politiques, sociologiques, économiques et autres où il "fluctue dans sa signification" (Grafton et Melancon, 2020 : 140).Les experts dans ce domaine abordent cette dissonance en incluant les perspectives du concept dans un processus dialogique de 'Basket weaving' (Tully et Burrows, 2018 : 11), où les limites de chaque perspective sont soigneusement analysées et débattues.Cette thèse contribue au processus de Basket weaving en analysant la littérature sur la réconciliation sous l'angle du modèle théorique de la décolonialité (Quijano, Mignolo, Walsh), une perspective rarement utilisée dans le contexte canadien.Ce modèle identifie les structures par lesquelles la colonialité opère -à savoir le contrôle eurocentrique sur la connaissance, la gouvernance, l'économie et l'humanité, ainsi que le déni simultané des alternatives autochtones.Les résultats identifient des conceptions de la réconciliation qui sont incompatibles avec la décolonisation et propose les prochaines étapes pour le processus de Basket weaving, une contribution importante pour adresser le problème de dissonance.Woolford, A. (2015).This benevolent experiment: Indigenous boarding schools, genocide, and redress in Canada and the United States.
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 | 0.027 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".