MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564325738

A New Open Model Approach to Projecting Aboriginal Populations

2007· article· en· W2564325738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stewart Clatworthy, Mary Jane Norris, Éric Guimond

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)PopulationContext (archaeology)GeographyGovernment (linguistics)LegislationEconomic growthPolitical scienceSociologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in the size, composition, and geographic distribution of populations can have a substantial impact on the demand for a wide range of goods and services. Ways of understanding and projecting demographic changes among Canada’s Aboriginal populations are critical to the development of sound social and economic policies, as well as to the design, financing, and delivery of many programs and services to Aboriginal populations and communities. Population projections not only provide critical inputs to budgeting and to policy and program development, but may also provide important information for negotiations concerning Aboriginal self-government, land claims, and treaty entitlements. Methods used to project numbers for Canada’s Aboriginal populations have evolved considerably over the course of the past 30 years. This evolution has resulted, in large part, from the recognition that factors other than the traditional demographic components of fertility, mortality, and migration also play significant (and, in some contexts, the most important) roles in shaping Aboriginal population growth and change. These other factors, which include legislation, parenting patterns, the transfer of legal entitlement and/or Aboriginal identity from one generation to the next, and ethnic mobility, present considerable challenges to the development of Aboriginal population projections. This paper discusses the nature of these factors and their implications for the development of Aboriginal population projections. This paper is structured into four sections. Section 2 provides a brief discussion of the traditional or “closed” population projection model, its implied assumptions, and its limitations within the context of projecting Aboriginal populations. Section 3 identifies the structure and components of an alternative projection model, which incorporates the main features of an “open” population and illustrates how this type of model has be applied within the context of projecting the Registered Indian population. Section 4 extends the discussion to include additional issues and challenges which arise within the context of projecting other Aboriginal population groups. A final section looks at some of the existing gaps in demographic research, which need to be addressed in order to advance the development of more appropriate Aboriginal population projection methodologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.239
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207