MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143943002 · doi:10.5663/aps.v1i1.8970

Urbanization and Migration Patterns of Aboriginal Populations in Canada: A Half Century in Review (1951 to 2006)

2011· article· en· W2143943002 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mary Jane Norris, Stewart Clatworthy

Bibliographic record

Venueaboriginal policy studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationGeographyEthnic groupTypologyMainstreamPopulationInternal migrationEconomic geographyPopulation growthSocioeconomicsDemographyEconomic growthPolitical scienceSociologyArchaeologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within Canada, Aboriginal populations have historically experienced significantly different levels and patterns of urbanization and migration than mainstream populations have. This article uses data from selected censuses, along with earlier studies, to explore long-term trends in Aboriginal urbanization and migration from 1951 to 2006.Migration between reserves and urban areas, and its role in the rapid growth of Aboriginal populations in urban areas, are considered from both historical and demographic perspectives, including a "components of growth" approach that assesses the contributions of migration, natural increase, and non-demographic factors (such as ethnic mobility and Aboriginal identity). The analysis of twelve major urban areas over the fifty-five-year period, including nine Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS) cities, suggests a preliminary typology of Aboriginal population growth in urban areas and implications for assessing the characteristics and needs of Aboriginal populations across different urban areas and the services provided for them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.026
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueaboriginal policy studiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207