SOCIAL COHESION? A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE URBAN ABORIGINAL STRATEGY AND ITS APPLICATION TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS IN WINNIPEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract I Resume Aboriginal self-determination has been reasserted over the past few decades. The right of self-government is recognised in federal policy. Social welfare goals have been articulated in terms of developing greater social cohesion. Aboriginal people in urban areas have received significant attention given their disproportionate socio-economic marginalisation and the threat this poses to social cohesion. The Urban Aboriginal Strategy was introduced to help deal with this marginalisation. Au cours des dernieres decennies, on a reaffirme I'autodetermination des Autochtones. Le droit a I'autonomie gouvernementale est reconnu dans les politiques federales. On a articule des objectifs de securite sociale dans un cadre de developpement de la cohesion sociale. Les Autochtones des zones urbaines ont beneficie d'une attention importante en raison de leur marginalisation socio-economique disproportionnee et de la menace que cela fait planer sur la cohesion sociale. La Strategie pour les Autochtones vivant en milieu urbain a ete elaboree pour traiter une telle marginalisation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".