MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7024072618

Proceedings of Expert Forum on First Nations Social Assistance Reform, September 3, 2019

2019· article· en· W7024072618 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegislationTreasuryPopulationGovernment (linguistics)Social Security ActSocial WelfareMainstreamPoliticsSocial security
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Social assistance, whether directed to the mainstream population or to First Nations, is not – according to Forum participants -- a sexy topic. Specifically, with respect to First Nation persons living on reserve in Canada, it has been largely a neglected field except for those directly responsible for administering it. Despite its substantive importance, it has not received a lot of attention from the academic research community, for example, nor is it usually near the top of the list of priorities for political leaders and governments.\nWhy is this the case? Perhaps it has to do with the history of providing assistance, which for colonial and federal governments has been seen through the lens of limiting government expenditures. Indeed, the major historical study of this social policy area has the title Enough to Keep Them Alive: Indian Welfare in Canada 1873-1965.1 It may also have to do with the stigma associated with being on welfare, the legacy of the English Poor Laws and their division of the population in need between the deserving and the undeserving poor.\nAs Naiomi Metallic points out in her presentation reproduced below, providing social assistance on reserve also does not rest on a very firm legal foundation. It was in 1964 that federal officials were first given formal authority to allocate funds for assistance, but this was only through a Treasury Board Directive, not through legislation backed by Parliamentary approval. In addition, social assistance is normally provided to Canadian citizens by the provinces, and indeed federal officials in the 1960’s were busy trying to get the provinces on board to deliver assistance on reserve. They were unsuccessful in all cases except Ontario, with the result that “social” has been funded by the federal Indian Affairs department with delivery devolved to individual First Nations. The 1964 Treasury Board Directive tied social assistance to the policies and practices of the provinces and thus did not develop the legal, policy and administrative infrastructure that would normally attend such an important social policy. The provinces, for their part, were understandably focused on the needs of their provincial populations and paid little heed to the implications of their policies and programs for on-reserve populations nor did they consult them when changes were in the offing. Indeed, First Nations have had virtually no input on the matter of social assistance at either the federal or provincial levels.\nYet this social policy area is so important on reserve. As data presented in Andrew Sharpe’s presentation reveal, looking at First Nations across Canada, some 30 per cent of the population living on reserve receives social assistance according to the latest statistics available (2016-17), a number that is six times that for the mainstream population. While dependence rates vary widely from one First Nation to another, almost 40 per cent of First Nations fall into the category of having more than 37 per cent of the population on assistance2. Data reported below indicates that levels of poverty and dependency have declined substantially over the past several decades in the mainstream population, but among First Nation persons living on reserve, poverty and social assistance rates are multiple times higher than they are for the mainstream population.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,969
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,333

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,001
Communication savante0,0060,003
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0140,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1000,020

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Même sujetIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→Travaux en français237 207→