Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract/Resume Although agency and power in Aboriginal communities is often not recognized, this paper develops a conceptual framework within which both the oppression and the agency of a Metis settlement is identified and assessed. It is based on ongoing participatory action research, completed by the first author, who is also Metis. Kelly Lake, British Columbia is currently faced with a number of challenges, such as the lack of a proper sanitary sewage system, little access to natural resources and few health services. Despite these circumstances, the residents of Kelly Lake have undertaken several initiatives to ameliorate the problems and reorient the embedded power relationships. Bien que l'on ne reconnaisse pas souvent les relations de pouvoir dans les collectivites autochtones, le present article elabore un cadre conceptuel qui permet de cerner et d'evaluer l'oppression et le pouvoir dans un etablissement metis. L'article est fonde sur des recherches continues sur l'action participative menees par le premier auteur, qui est egalement metis. La collectivite de Kelly Lake (Colombie-Britannique) fait presentement face a un certain nombre de problemes, tels que l'absence d'un systeme adequat de traitement des eaux usees, un acces limite aux ressources naturelles et le faible nombre de services de sante. Malgre de telles conditions, les residants de Kelly Lake ont mis en oeuvre plusieurs mesures d'amelioration et de reorientation des relations de pouvoir integrees. Introduction Agency and power in Aboriginal communities, particularly in historical contexts, has often not been recognized. Canada's first peoples have typically been positioned as victims who do little either to resist or redefine the hegemonic relations within which they are embedded (DePasquale, 2003). Yet, as many authors, such as Winona LaDuke (1999) have pointed out, the landscape of Native struggles is replete with examples of their dynamic engagement in the issues that affect their lives. Within Canada, Annette Chretien (2005) argues that the Metis have long been actively involved in political struggles, but that the nature of those struggles has evolved over time. She asserts that subsequent to the Canadian Constitution of 1982 and the official recognition of the Metis, Metis politics has shifted away from the 'politics of recognition' towards the 'politics of definition.' By this she means that although the Metis are now officially recognized as one of Canada's first peoples (the other two groups being First Nations and the Inuit), the politics has now shifted towards such questions as who is Metis, what rights and resources ought to follow from that definition and who gets to decide such questions. As compared to Canada's First Nations and lnuit groups, these are particularly thorny issues since the Metis have less clearly defined access to land rights, the government funding of social programs, language rights and so on. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP 1996) addressed some of the complexities involved in the 'politics of definition.' RCAP recognized the existence of Metis peoples throughout Canada yet made the distinction between the Metis Nation and Other' Metis peoples. In the context of RCAP, the Metis Nation refers to the historical community tied to Red River, Manitoba and the military conflicts of the nineteenth century involving Louis Riel (Chretien, 2005). The Metis Nation is linked to the Metis National Council (MNC) and has official recognition by the federal government. Regarding the 'other' Metis, RCAP states: Several Metis communities came into existence, independently of the Metis Nation, in the eastern part of what we now call Canada, some of them predating the establishment of the Metis Nation. The history of Metis people who are not part of the Metis Nation is not easy to relate. For one thing, their past has not been much studied by historians. If the Metis Nation's story is unfamiliar to most Canadians, the story of the 'other' Metis is almost untold. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".