MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602092770 · doi:10.15353/pced.v16i0.61

Developing a First Nation community skills inventory

2017· article· en· W2602092770 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Devon MacKinnon-Ottertail

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers in Canadian Economic Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemorandumMemorandum of understandingNegotiationCertificationTracking (education)BusinessDutyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyLawPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First Nation communities have been presented a stronger role in mining and forestry developments by recent court judgements on governments’ duty to consult. Negotiations with mining companies have often included employment for community members in any Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). When jobs are presented by mining companies, the forestry industry, and other employers, there is no current system for First Nation Administrators to determine if community members have the pre-requisite skills, experience and qualifications that the employer is looking for and this has led to missed opportunities.To act on these prospects, Eagle Lake First Nation (ELFN) developed a system for tracking any training offered by the Band and created a skills inventory for additional training and certifications that community members have completed either on-reserve or off-reserve. This paper will document the development of this system.Keywords: First Nations, employment, recruitment, human resources, skills, community skills inventory, Ontario, Canada.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.208
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers in Canadian Economic DevelopmentSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207