Seeing like a Circle: Perspectives on the Field from a Dialogue on Urban Aboriginal Economic Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the early 1970s, Aboriginal communities, policy analysts, and researchers have constructed “urban Aboriginal economic development” as both a domain of strategic intervention and a field of tactical contestation. An integral part of this project has been the creation of a body of academic knowledge about urban Aboriginal peoples and their relationship to the economy. This article surveys the current state of knowledge about urban Aboriginal economic development, identifying strengths and gaps in our understanding of this topic, arguing that unlike the policy and program domains, academic knowledge is characterized by its refracted, indirect nature. The analysis is informed by the results of a multi-year dialogue process on urban economic development between Aboriginal peoples, researchers, and policy analysts. In response to the limitations identified in the existing literature, we suggest two supplemental approaches: place-based economics, and new regionalism.
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 | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.065 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".