Aboriginal child welfare in British Columbia and unequal power relations: A critical discourse analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a paper about unequal power relations in Aboriginal child welfare in British Columbia. We analyze a number of rhetorical devices used by the Representative for Children and Youth in her report When Talk Trumped Service: A Decade of Lost Opportunity for Aboriginal Children and Youth in B.C . We include language, financial numbers, charts and graphs that reinforce domination of Aboriginal peoples and potentially undermine the efforts of Aboriginal people’s toward self-determination in child welfare. The paper provides examples of how power manifests itself through language, reinforcing historically negative stereotypes that are then supported in the media. We conclude that such reports reflect a colonial legacy that continues to inform relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples, and if not critically assessed will significantly impact Aboriginal Child Welfare policy, funding and practice decisions. La protection des enfants autochtones en Colombie-Britannique et les rapports de force inegaux : une analyse du discours critique. Resume Cet article examine les rapports de force inegaux qui sont manifestes a travers la politique de la protection des enfants autochtones, en Colombie-Britannique. Nous faisons analyse de nombres de divers procedes de rhetorique utilises par la representante des enfants et des adolescents de la Colombie-Britannique dans son rapport, WhenTalk Trumped Service: A Decade of Lost Opportunity for Aboriginal Children and Youth in B.C . Nous incluons dans cette analyse le langage, les donnees financieres, les tableaux et les graphiques, qui renforcent la domination des peuples autochtones, et qui, potentiellement, sapent les efforts des peuples autochtones a s’autodeterminer en matiere de protection de l’enfance. Cet article fournit des exemples des manifestations du pouvoir a travers le langage, reifiant des stereotypes negatives historiquement associes aux autochtones, et qui se retrouvent repetes de nouveau et promus a travers les medias. Nous concluons que des rapports tel celui-ci reflete un heritage colonial qui continue d’influencer les relations entre autochtones et non-autochtones. S’ils ne sont pas evalues de maniere critique, ceux-ci continueront d’influencer negativement les politiques, les practices et les decisions des politiques de protection de l’enfance autochtone. Mots Clefs : Premieres Nations; autochtones; discours; politique de protection a l’enfance; pouvoir
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".