Urban Natives and the Nation: Before and After the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie la relation entre la formation de L'État canadien et la construction des identités amérindiennes, au moyen de la fonction légitimante des commissions d'enquête, pour la période allant de la Loi constitutionnelle, 1982 au rapport de la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones en 1996. Nous examinons, en particulier, dans quelle mesure le rapport de la CRPA « normalise » des narratifs de politique amérindienne déjà présents, les stabilisant en une hiérarchie rigide de revendications qui s'appuie sur le modèle de la nation. L'analyse se concentre sur le positionnement problématique des Amérindiens urbains et des Indiens sans statut face à la « nation », ce qui mène à leur marginalisation dans les débats politiques actuels. This paper examines the relationship between Canadian state formation and the construction of Aboriginal identities via the legitimating function of the public inquiry, for the period from the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982 to the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996). Specifically, we examine the extent to which the RCAP Report “normalizes” pre‐existing narratives regarding Aboriginal politics into a rigid hierarchy of claims privileging the nation model and those Aboriginals with a land base. We argue that the nation model is reinforced, legitimized and publicized through the RCAP Report's function as a legitimating tool of the state.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".