MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1572553374 · doi:10.7202/1069542ar

Same Country; Same Lands; 78 Countries Away

2020· article· en· W1572553374 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Cindy Blackstock

Bibliographic record

VenueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First Peoples · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialVoluntary sectorEconomic growthVoluntary associationTurnoverPolitical sciencePublic administrationPsychologyLawEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2003) noted, Aboriginal children face more discrimination and increased risk factors than other Canadian children. Their lived experiences are shaped by the policies of assimilation and colonization that aimed to eliminate Aboriginal cultures through repression of fundamental freedoms, denial of ownership and the operation of residential schools (RCAP, 1996; Milloy, 1999). First Nations child and family service agencies have expressed concern about the lack of resources available to support families in redressing the significant impacts of colonization. The voluntary sector provides a myriad of important social supports to Canadians off reserve and this research project sought to determine how accessible voluntary sector resources were for First Nations children, youth and families resident on reserve in British Columbia. Results of a provincial survey of First Nations child and family service agencies and child, youth and family voluntary sector organizations indicate very limited access to voluntary sector services. Possible rationales for this social exclusion are examined and recommendations for improvement are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1510.024

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFirst Peoples Child & Family Review An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices Perspectives and Knowledges of First Peoples→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→