MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561750627

Why Jurisdiction Matters: Social Policy, Social Services and First Nations

2016· article· en· W2561750627 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of native studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentColonialismLawState (computer science)Political scienceConstitution of IndiaJurisdictionGovernment (linguistics)ConstitutionSociologyPublic administrationPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. First Nations' Loss of Control Over Social PolicyThere is a significant literature that describes and deconstructs history of colonial and then Canadian state - Aboriginal relations. From this literature it becomes clear how First Nations were gradually stripped of their independence and control over their social and cultural affairs; that is, there are broad stroke events that gradually usurped First Nations of their self-determination. Beginning with fur trade, Royal Proclamation of 1763, settlement, implementation of English colonial policies and finally creation of Canadian state and Indian Act, all these historical occurrences led to disempowerment of Aboriginal peoples within what today is Canada.2 This part of paper describes how state gradually - sometimes not so gradually - constricted ability of First Nations to have any say or influence over social policies that shaped their lives. Indeed, Indian3 matters themselves became part of general purview of federal government social policy - that is, First Nations became objects of government social policy. Thus, phrases like the Indian question and the Indian problem came into common usage until came to be merely a sub-set of Canadian social problems along with income security, health care, housing, family and child welfare, and so on (Shewell, 2004,172, 204, 391).The modem marker in First Nations' loss of control over social policy was formation of Canadian state under British North American Act of 1867 (now Canadian Constitution Act of 1982). In addition to creation of Canadian state act also provided for formal division of powers between Parliament of Canada and provincial legislatures. Thus, under Section 91 (24) of Constitution Act, 1867, provides that and lands reserved for Indians were a federal responsibility (Canada, 2016). Instead of granting First Nations partnership status as a third order of government and among founding peoples of Canadian state they were relegated to wardship status under Indian Acts of 1876 and 1880 (Tobias, 1976). The mid- to late 19th century was then characterised by increased state intervention in Indian social affairs. As displacement from land intensified and fur trade wound down Indian economic independence markedly declined. Coates (1991) has noted that state's original response was to leave as much as possible to be Indian - meaning to encourage traditional ways of survival and livelihood. But as country's ecology, for example, significantly transformed, as game became scarce and widespread instances of starvation occurred state - that is, Ottawa - began to intervene to provide relief on a hardship basis (Shewell, 2004). Sometimes it did this directly, but more often it did it through agency of missionaries and Hudson's Bay Company (HBC). It was not unusual for missionaries to rely on chiefs to represent their situation and to distribute relief once it was obtained in kind from federal government. Similarly, HBC maintained a more interactive relationship with their First Nation trading partners and simply adapted their former practice of advancing credit to task of providing relief and then claiming compensation for costs from federal government (Ray, 1998; Shewell, 2004).A significant change in this pattern occurred when, in 1897, HBC finally pressured federal government to assume direct responsibility for funding and administering relief assistance.4 This shift in responsibility for administration of relief resulted in federal government developing stronger, clear-cut policies and procedures to determine relief eligibility and benefits. It also eliminated more interactive quality of relief provision at local level and centralised decision-making in Ottawa (Shewell, 2004). As agency system developed, state simply extended its reach into social affairs of bands through Indian Agent. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it