Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Prime Minister's Indigenous welfare reform is manifold. It has introduced Shared Responsibility Agreements and Regional Partnership Agreements for Indigenous communities, and restructured the Community Development Employment Projects scheme. It has abolished the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and distributed its functions between mainstream government departments. Indigenous Australians are categorised as marginal, non-institutionalised and illegitimate political minorities. In effect, the government has muted the Indigenous voice from a perspective of blaming the victim, as opposed to viewing the issue within power and inequality in the distribution of resources. The push to treat unequal Indigenous Australians equally by main streaming government services is in direct contrast to the United States and Canadian experiences where the degree of self-government that Indigenous nations exercise determines the change in rates of disadvantage. Ideas of empowerment through tactical intervention and emancipatory vision substantiate the overseas experience. These ideas provide an insight into ways of fostering an understanding and acknowledgement of human authenticity. They present an alternative pattern of inter cultural communication where Indigenous issues set the context of government policy making in an environment of recognition of Indigenous experiences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".