MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154224088 · doi:10.5663/aps.v3i3.22225

Genocide, Indian Policy, and Legislated Elimination of Indians in Canada

2014· article· en· W2154224088 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venueaboriginal policy studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Conflicts
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialEntitlement (fair division)LegislatureIndigenousPolitical scienceGenocideLawPublic administrationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of early Indian policy was to ensure the eventual disappearance of Indians – a goal which has not changed in hundreds of years. The registration provisions in the Indian Act will achieve this goal through entitlement criteria, which ensures legislative extinction after two generations of marrying out. This has resulted in two separate legal categories of federally recognized registrants: status and non-status Indians, where membership in one group or the other determines access to essential services, band membership and more. The denial of federal recognition to non-status Indians has also resulted, in some cases, in the erosion of Indigenous identity, culture and communal connection. Court-based remedies have done little to address these ongoing injustices and Canada has shown little interest in a significant policy change.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.331 · 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