Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal stewardship arises when responsibility is assumedfor something given by another.According to the author, it is upon this principle of stewardship, particularly its underlying notions of acknowledgement, accountability and approbation, that the First Nations Governance Act should rest.The Act is intended to refurbish parts of the anachronistic Indian Act, yet in reality, the author views this latter act as simply building upon the misguided ideas of its predecessors.He argues the principles of stewardship would properly align aboriginal governance with indigenous values that accord with previous native traditions and culture.Notions such as valour, loyalty and harmony with one's surroundings would more effectively guide First Nations policy, placing native governance in a more culturally appropriate context.Governance that follows such principles would especially affect issues of accountability, a problem to which the author draws special attention.Use of the strengths and contemporary relevance of stewardship would revitalize inherent aboriginal adjudicative procedures as well as forcing First Nations leaders to act in a more fiscally responsible manner.For the author, failure to place aboriginal governance in a more suitable context will undermine their traditional governance structures and hinder tackling issues of accountability.Accordingly, this failure is the downfall of the First Nations Governance Act. Gaamiinigooyang II. Indian Act Reform Proposals: Accomplishment/Gikinoo'amaadiwin
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".