Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report, prepared for the Friendship Centres of Canada, provides a detailed overview and assessment of available sources of labour market information (LMI) on Aboriginal Canadians. The Friendship Centres play a pivotal role in community and economic development by providing training and employment opportunities, facilitating social development, and building human and resource capacity for Aboriginal Canadians. Better labour market information, and better use of existing LMI, can facilitate their work. The three most important sources of LMI for Aboriginal Canadians are the Labour Force Survey, National Household Survey, and Aboriginal Peoples Survey. The report identifies the exclusion of the Aboriginal population living on reserve in all Statistics Canada surveys except the National Household Survey and the Census as the most important lacuna in Canadian Aboriginal labour market information. The report concludes that despite the many gaps, there is a wealth of Aboriginal LMI available in Canada, at the national, regional and local levels, that can be used by Friendship Centres to better develop and target programs and services to the urban Aboriginal population.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.094 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".