MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162081268 · doi:10.82308/42863

Hannah Arendt and the art of the 2008 Canadian apology for Indian residential schools

2019· dissertation· en· W7162081268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neil Montgomery

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHannah Arendt's Political Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)PoliticsColonial periodEthnography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours des dernières décennies, les excuses politiques sont devenues la principale méthode de réconciliation dans des circonstances d’injustice historique flagrante. Dans les contextes de colonie de peuplement, les États colonisateurs ont de plus en plus présenté des excuses politiques aux peuples autochtones. Cette thèse concerne les excuses présentées en 2008 par le Premier ministre de l'époque, Stephen Harper, aux survivants du système des pensionnats indiens canadiens. Premièrement, je conteste la mesure dans laquelle les excuses politiques peuvent être comprises via la théorie des actes de langage. Deuxièmement, je propose une méthodologie alternative pour interpréter le discours politique, basée sur la philosophie de Hannah Arendt. Je montre à quel point une approche Arendtienne des excuses politiques, qui met l’accent sur l’acte créatif de l’interprétation publique, exploite un pouvoir de divulgation et constitue un monde politique. Dans le contexte canadien, cela révèle le potentiel des excuses politiques de favoriser la réconciliation postcoloniale par le biais d'une rencontre avec le colonialisme de peuplement en tant qu'injustice structurelle

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0300.031
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHannah Arendt's Political PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207