Bibliographic record
Abstract
The publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in 2015 was a significant moment in both the story of Canadian-Indigenous relations and church-Indigenous relations. Churches across Canada have been wrestling not only with their complicity in the operation of residential schools but with their wider role in European colonialism. Many of the churches have initiated significant strategies for learning and education, and have explored ritual responses to residential schools and colonialism, such as land acknowledgements, art installations, and the reading of parts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. This paper is not quite about these ritual practices. Instead, it takes a wider lens, asking about the context in which these practices take place: what does it mean to “do” liturgy—to practice Christian ritual, to ritualize—in Canada today? More broadly, however, it asks how settler colonialism—particular practices of violence and domination—impact ritualization in contexts across the world—and how this is all rooted in the land. This paper proceeds in three parts. First, it discusses the concepts of the body, ritualization, and contextualization in Catherine Bell's Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Second, it examines settler colonialism using my own context of Canada as a particular example. Third, it draws on Cláudio Carvalhaes’ concept of lex naturae to expand Bell's concept of the “body”: all (liturgical) practice must be seen through the lens of creation. Through a brief case study, it then demonstrates one way in which a Christian community has attempted to bring the voice of the land into liturgical practice and thus expand the ritualization of “bodies” in Christian ritual. Because of the way that settler colonialism functions in its global contexts, ritualization should understand the “body” as including the land and the interrelationship of all created things.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".