Aboriginal Conditions in Census Metropolitan Areas, 1981-2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report examines the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the Aboriginal population living in 11 metropolitan centres in 1981 and 2001. It studies the size, age and mobility of the population; the family structure of Aboriginal people; school participation and educational attainment; and the labour market characteristics and transfer dependence of Aboriginal people. It finds that Aboriginal people living in the nation's largest metropolitan centres were faring better overall in 2001 than they were two decades earlier. Nevertheless, these Aboriginal urban dwellers still faced many challenges, especially those in living in urban centres in the western provinces, where large gaps remained with their non-Aboriginal counterparts. The report examines the Aboriginal identity population, which refers to those persons who identified with at least one Aboriginal group, that is, North American Indian, Metis or Inuit. The concept of identity allows for historical comparability with the concept used in the 1981 Census to discuss changes over time. Data came from the censuses of 1981, 1996 and 2001, as well as the 2001 Aboriginal Peoples Survey. The metropolitan areas examined include Montreal, Ottawa-Hull (now known as Ottawa-Gatineau), Toronto, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".