Economic Development Programs On-Reserve in the Blackfoot Confederacy: An Inquirt into Federal and Local Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development defines economic development as “the process by which a community or nation improves its economic ability to sustain its citizens, achieve its sociocultural goals, and support its sovereignty and governing processes.” However, it proves difficult to find concrete definitions of “economic development” in the Canadian literature, and particularly in government documents. This indicates that there is little context for the current policy work being put forward by federal and provincial governments, as well as a gap in public information on how First Nations economic development programs work together to empower Indigenous communities and to escape the cycle of dependency. If we understand programs to be the measures taken to achieve policy goals, then it is reasonable to assume that economic development programs have the general goal of facilitating Indigenous peoples in supporting their societies. This capstone project examines some key differences between federal and non-governmental programming and proposes actionable solutions moving forward in a Nation-to-Nation context. This capstone project addresses the following question: What is the effect of government and non-governmental programs on removing barriers and fostering opportunities for First Nation economic development on-reserve in the Blackfoot Confederacy? In this case, “barrier” refers to anything that interferes with a reserve community’s ability to achieve their economic and socio-cultural goals, and “opportunity” refers to actions or environments that enable a reserve community to achieve their economic and socio-cultural goals.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".