DO CANADIAN POWER-SHARING AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES HOLD LESSONS FOR TAIWAN?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 23 September 2010, the government of Taiwan moved closer to establishing a legislative framework for the negotiation of power sharing agreements with the nation's aboriginal groups when the Cabinet decided to approve the Indigenous Peoples Self-Government Act. Although the Act still awaits passage by the Legislature, many stakeholders in aboriginal self-rule are optimistic about this latest move. Others say the legislation lacks teeth. In many of its policy initiatives, the ROC government has looked abroad for a blueprint, and Canada is the Western country that is often promoted as a viable model to follow in this regard. The purpose of this paper is to contrast the historical and cultural influences of each nation's relationship with its indigenous population and, given these variances, identify potential roadblocks to Taiwan's successful implementation of a viable mechanism for deriving aboriginal self-government agreements based on the Canadian example, as well as to propose policy recommendations on what direction relevant legislation should take.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".