Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social, economic, and political regulation of Canada's First Nations was codified in the Indian Act. Rooted in colonialism and paternalism, the Indian Act was created by the government of Canada to fulfill three functions: (1) to define who was and was not an Indian; (2) to civilize the Indian; and (3) to manage the Indian people and their lands. The Indian Act is restrictive and continues to govern virtually every aspect of Indian life including band membership, leisure activities, and land use and band leadership. Over time, some of the more restrictive policies governing Indians were dropped and more freedoms were granted. As a result, First Nations people began to enjoy some of the privileges set aside for mainstream Canadians. In addition, First Nations women began to enjoy some of the government-sponsored privileges that were previously reserved for First Nations men. There has been a rapid increase in the number of women elected to the role of chief in Canada's First Nations community throughout the past fifteen years, and this article explores some of the explanations for this recent phenomenon. Using the lens of postcolonial theory, the author explores women chiefs' experiences with the lingering effects of colonialism, colonial notions of womanhood, and how indigenous women have been able to oppose those beliefs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".