Building Better Together: Exploring Indigenous Economic Development in New Brunswick Report
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This project, titled "Building Better Together: Exploring Indigenous Economic Development in New Brunswick", sought to ask: What does Indigenous economic development mean to Indigenous Peoples living in New Brunswick? In doing so, it attempts to identify obstacles, opportunities, and priorities to achieve these development goals. With support from an Indigenous Research Capacity and Reconciliation Connection Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), this project brought together 130 frontline representatives from Indigenous communities, organizations, and businesses with those from academia and relevant provincial and federal departments for a Mawi'omi (meaning 'gathering' in Mi'kmaq) in May 2019 to explore these questions. In large part, this initiative validates previous research on Indigenous economic development specifically, and Indigenous development more broadly. A majority of the participants identified that self-sufficiency and self-sustainability for Indigenous communities were the most important factors for successful community development, with long-term stability the second most important factor. Three factors were tied for third: revitalizing language and culture, providing employment and training opportunities to members, and improving community wellness and cohesion. Key priorities for economic development were the creation of employment opportunities and the development of workforce skills, as well as the development of lands and infrastructure for economic development, while key opportunities were the cannabis, tourism, natural resources, and renewable resource sector. And finally, key challenges to the pursuit of Indigenous economic development were financing, human resources, and social issues. Throughout the event, participants also emphasized the need for more meaningful and respectful relations with government and the private sector. Resulting from this research, several recommendations were identified that support the findings above. These recommendations target three main groups: to SSHRC, continue to offer annual grants specifically for Indigenous communities and organizations, to support the creation of diverse research products relating to Indigenous economic development, and to create or support a platform to share information and resources relating to Indigenous economic development; to the federal government, increase funding for economic development for First Nation communities and Indigenous organizations; to the provincial government, create a task force to increase the inclusion of First Nation communities and Indigenous Peoples in the tourism, cannabis, natural resource, and renewable energy sectors; and to First Nation Communities in New Brunswick: develop strategies to support self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic development.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».