MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487097920

Renewing Funding Relationships: Certifying First Nations Social Service Administrators

2012· article· en· W1487097920 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gayle Broad, Micheal Nadeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique sociale · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsAlgoma University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationAccountabilityNegotiationPolitical sciencePublic relationsEconomic growthBusinessEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Governments have been key funders of both social economy (SE) organizations and First Nation communities, yet the relationships between them have not necessarily been easy to negotiate. Challenges abound for government funders and SE and First Nation recipients in building respectful relations. Some of the key factors contributing to the challenges include:* Increased demand for accountability in government spending* Differing perceptions between the parties as to the appropriate roles of each* SE organizations and First Nations may perceive government-determined funding eligibility criteria and/or priorities as obstacles to responding to community need* Fear that difficulties in program administration may result in loss of funding or cooptation by funders of programs away from community needIn this article, using a case study approach, we argue that a renewed relationship between government funders and First Nations and SE organizations can be based on an improved understanding of one another's perspective.1 Without such a renewal, vital programs and services shall be leftfloundering without the crucial input of community-based knowledge and needs assessments. We will conclude this article with a number of recommended directions for the development of such a renewal.Government Funding, Social Economy Organizations, and First NationsSince significant cuts to social spending throughout the 1990s, SE organizations are facing growing needs in communities and greater challenges in accessing government funding. In response, in the early 2000s practitioners united to obtain federal government support to grow the social economy (Guy & Heneberry, 2009) and found a sympathetic ear in Prime Minister Paul Martin. Recent literature on financing of the SE reveals significant concerns that the substantial cuts in social spending generally, and to voluntary organizations specifically (Elson, 2011), have compromised the sector's capacity to respond to community need. Additionally, the government's own inability to track funding allocations due to reductions of staffin the public sector, have resulted in SE organizations having .... paid a high price for accountability in terms of below-cost project funding and excessive reporting (Elson, 2011,p. 102). Elson (2011) points out that underfunded and short-term projects are inadequate to address underlying social issues. Choudry and Schragge (2011) raise concern that policy changes may adversely impact SE organizations' engagement in dissent and advocacy. Indeed, a federal policy change during the 1990s denies charitable status to organizations engaging in advocacy (Elson, 2011).For First Nations, relationships with government funders are even more complex, particularly since the provision of social services often involves some combination of both the federal and provincial governments. Reporting requirements can be onerous and successful funding proposals must align with government-identified priorities (Frideres, 2011) which are often at odds with First Nations' identified needs (ONWAA, 2011). Further, government's priorities are constantly shifting and programs and funding are rarely in place long enough to achieve the stated objective(s):In 2008, the First Nations Student Success Program and the Education Partnerships Program were touted as the programs that would solve some of the problems with First Nation students staying in school and graduating from secondary school. Yet these programs only have a shelf life of three years and then they will be abandoned. (Frideres, 2011, p.195)Frideres further outlines how government funding policy to First Nations is one of control, not respect for autonomy:...four federal departments....required nearly 170 reports annually from each First Nation community. Indian Affairs alone obtains more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nation communities. This represents a report from each community almost every three days of the year. …

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0320.016
Scholarly communication0.0270.026
Open science0.0040.027
Research integrity0.0200.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique socialeSame topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207