MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1453920215

Ever Higher: Government Spending on Canada's Aboriginals Since 1947

2013· article· en· W1453920215 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Milke

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsFraser Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)PopulationHealth careGovernment spendingPolitical scienceTreatyEconomic growthPublic administrationDemographyEconomicsWelfareLawSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides a fact-based look at the claim that public spending on Canada’s Aboriginal population is inadequate. It does so by examining actual spending on Aboriginal Canadians using four sources: the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Health Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, and provincial governments. The increase in spending on Canada’s Aboriginal peoples has been significant regardless of the source looked at. For instance, accounting for inflation, in the department of Aboriginal Affairs, spending on Canada’s Aboriginal peoples rose to almost $7.9 billion in 2011/12 from $79 million annually in 1946/47. Per First Nations person, such spending rose to $9,056 by 2011/12 from $922 per person in 1949/50. That constitutes an 882 percent rise in spending per First Nations person. In comparison, total federal program spending per person on all Canadians rose by 387 percent, to $7,316 in 2011/12 from $1,504 in 1949/50. In addition, some government spending is directed to Aboriginal Canadians not because of treaty or constitutional obligations but because of policy decisions and for items most Canadians must either pay for out of pocket or for which they must purchase insurance. An example is how Health Canada provides $1.1 billion annually for dental care, vision care and pharmaceutical coverage for eligible First Nations and Inuit peoples. The study’s numbers are partial, an under-estimate, and conservative. Federally, only three departments were examined for spending on Aboriginals. Provincial sources were chronicled but there may well have been additional expenditures not explicitly identified and thus missed. Municipal and territorial spending was not analyzed. This partial look at three federal departments and provincial government spending reveals spending on Canada’s Aboriginal population that has risen substantially in real (after-inflation) terms, whether measured in spending in the particular department, in comparison with overall government program spending (federal or provincial), or in relevant per-person comparisons.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→