Book Review: Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State, by Alan C. Cairns; First Nations? Second Thoughts, by Tom Flanagan; A People's Dream: Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada, by Dan Russell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of discourse-how we describe where we are and how we got here-has a major effect on what we define as problems and the kind of solutions we seek. 5In these three texts we find expressed and neatly packaged the choices emanating from three individuals in very different situations-the mainstream conservative, the right-wing ideologue, and the Aboriginal lawyer.Thinking not only about how these individuals define problems and search for solutions, but also about how their situations reflect their perspectives (which in turn determine the sorts of choices they make), can provide some insight into the nature of the current debate on the proper place of Aboriginal self-government in Canada.However, focusing on the writers' positions as a lens for [hereinafter Citizens Plus].
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.007 |
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".