MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031000066 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2012-098

Partnering to Finance Enterprise Development in the Aboriginal Social Economy

2014· article· en· W2031000066 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lou Hammond Ketilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipGovernment (linguistics)Financial servicesBusinessFinanceFinancial institutionService (business)InstitutionPopulationService providerCommunity developmentEconomic growthEconomicsMarketingPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant portion of the Aboriginal population lives in rural and remote locations. Many Aboriginals do not have access to financial services in their communities. Aboriginal Financial Institutions (AFIs), created in the 1980s through a partnership with the federal government, are a key source of business financing and support services for Aboriginal entrepreneurs. Some are exploring the creation of a financial institution to service personal and community banking needs. This paper examines the potential for AFIs to evolve from their current developmental role to that of full-service financial providers, such as credit unions. It also raises related policy issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207