Bibliographic record
Abstract
I CANNOT COMMENT ON T H E DETAIL of the Nisga'a treaty, which is now up for ratification, but there are certain broad features of it that seem to be essential. However, these seem to be exactly the ones that are being heavily criticized in the BC press. If the kind of thinking that is expressed in some of the comments prevails, all hope of a genuine settlement between Canadian governments and Aboriginals will be dashed. W h a t are these criticisms? I want to talk about two here. i. The first is that the deal is racist. This is a hot-button word to throw into the debate. As one who has heard Quebeckers called racist because they prize their autonomy, I know that this word needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But those who use it are not offering an argument; they are trying to stop people thinking by provoking them to go into a spasm of negative reaction. And this hardly helps. W h a t does racism mean? Well, one meaning applies to Nazis, members of the Ku Klux Klan, and the like. They operate out of a doctrine that a certain group is biologically inferior and so adopting policies that reflect that inferiority, including depriving the target group of certain rights and capacities that others enjoy. No one is adopting such a doctrine in the present case, and no group is being thus targeted. The whole thing comes down to something much less dramatic. It is that by the Nisga'a treaty, and probably a host of others across the country, certain powers of self-government will be given to a group that is defined by descent; that is, a group that others can't join at will. A minute's reflection will show that this is an essential part of any serious proposal for Aboriginal self-rule.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".