MARKET TRENDS OF CANADIAN FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE: A CRITIQUE OF THE GROWTH PARADIGM BY THE SOCIAL WELLBEING OBJECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advance of capitalism and the growth paradigm have not always been to the benefit of target groups in the national labor market. The relative status of such target groups to the total labor force has not necessarily improved with the advance of economic growth. Consequently, sheer economic theory that is not embedded in social issues to improve the wellbeing of the underprivileged people in the labor force has not been useful to address the greater picture of wellbeing as the meaning of labor market adaptation of target groups. The concept of labor market adaptation is thus not limited to labor market efficiency. Instead, the complementary relations between improving social equity simultaneously with labor market efficiency define the comprehensive concept of wellbeing. The prevalent belief on the optimal concept of economic growth with technological change and productivity gained by human resource inputs is examined for relevance when applied to the actual and estimated perspectives of the labor market problems of target groups.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".