"United we stand, divided we fall?" : activism among aboriginal women in Nova Scotia, 1970-1985
Bibliographic record
Abstract
United We Stand, Divided We Fall?": Activism Among Aboriginal Women in Nova Scotia, 1970-1985 By Carolyn Taylor Through an analysis of primary and secondary documents, this study determined that from the early colonial period to the mid 19 th century, adversative colonial and state policies imposed on Aboriginal communities initiated an activist spirit among Aboriginal women in Nova Scotia.In the 1970s this activism found expression in the formation of the Nova Scotia Native Women's Association and the Non-Status and Métis Association of Nova Scotia.This study examined the policies imposed on Aboriginal communities in Nova Scotia, determined the most critical issues within these communities identified by Aboriginal women, analyzed activism among Aboriginal women and the opposition women faced from local band governance and the Canadian state.The research was largely focused on the loss of legal "Indian" status among Aboriginal women through discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act and women's struggle to regain their "Indian" identity under Canadian law. July 30, 2012To all of the women who have suffered because of the system and those who have had the strength to challenge it -thank you for the inspiration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".