MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525651122 · doi:10.14288/bcs.v0i89.1383

Conspiracy of Legislation: The Suppression of Indian Rights in Canada

2010· article· en· W1525651122 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joe Mathias, Gary R. Yabsley

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionPoliticsLegislationLawPolitical scienceBill of rightsPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

JOE MATHIAS, whose Indian name is St'sukwanem, is a hereditary Chief of the Squamish people. He has also held the position of elected Chief since 1967 when he won it by acclamation. In 1969 he was appointed by his people as the political spokesperson for the Squamish nation. For seventeen years he worked as the band's housing administrator, and in 1985 he became the Land Claims Coordinator. In the same year he was selected by other British Columbia bands as British Columbia's regional vice-president to the Assembly of First Nations. He was re-elected by acclamation in 1988 and resigned the post in 1990. At the British Columbia regional level he has been active with the Aboriginal Council, the First Nations Congress and various organizations dealing with fisheries issues. Nationally, Joe has worked on the constitution and the Cooligan report on the federal land claims policy. Gary Yabsley is an associate in the law firm of Ratcliff & Co. in North Vancouver. He has represented Indian & Inuit nations on a broad range of matters for over fifteen years, during which time he and Chief Mathias co-authored this article. Gary is currently completing his doctorate in political science at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0550.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207