Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a report on the socio-economic development of the Metis in Canada. The report identifies appropriate indicators to benchmark Metis socio-economic development against non-Aboriginal socio-economic development, while establishing a benchmark against which future progress can be gauged. Quite briefly, there have been strong gains in Metis socio-economic development, especially concerning income and education. In particular, Metis median income reached 86.7 per cent of non-Aboriginal median income in 2010, up from 72.9 per cent in 2000. In terms of education, the share of the Metis with a college, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma as their highest degree actually surpassed the share of the non-Aboriginal population in similar areas by 2011. However, there are still a number of gaps that remain. For example, the Metis continue to have poorer indicators of health, especially concerning smoking. Furthermore, the Metis still have lower levels of suitable housing than the non-Aboriginal population. One of the most interesting findings of the report is the large gaps that exist within the Metis Nation between provinces. The report concludes that concerted efforts, determined cooperation, and substantial participation from Metis leaders and Metis organizations at both the provincial and national level will be required to close the remaining gaps between provinces within the Metis Nation and between the aggregate Metis and non-Aboriginal populations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".