Under the Accountability Microscope: Canadian Indigenous Accountability Policies, 2006-2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Political commentary, including discussion of Indigenous accountability, regarding nation to nation relationship building with Canada’s Indigenous nations has increased significantly since the federal election in October 2015. However, little academic research exists that assesses how prepared Canada’s public administrators are to implement such a vision. This thesis seeks to address this gap by exploring the role of accountability in the government’s relationship with First Nation communities. In particular, it investigates how the Conservative Government’s Indigenous accountability policies changed during their tenure from 2006-2016 and how these changes affected the Crown’s relationship with First Nation communities. The evidence collected through this project supports the argument that New Public Management, Canada’s current model of Public Administration, is fundamentally incapable of fostering an authentic nation to nation relationship as envisioned by many First Nation communities and Indigenous organizations. Communities remain subservient to the Crown through top-down Ministerial accountability, which remains firmly in place ten years later. Moreover, attempts to reduce program reporting requirements on First Nation communities has not resulted in any significant reduction in their reporting burden. This thesis argues that meaningful engagement with First Nation communities is a crucial interim step toward a new administrative framework that enables greater Indigenous self-determination.
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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".