Indigenous recognition: revisiting the recommendations for a First Nations dual-citizenship in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores First Nations peoples’ relationship with the Canadian government and how the issue of citizenship has played into this relationship. This thesis analyses citizenship theory as it relates to First Nations peoples through an examination of prominent theorists of Canadian politics and Indigenous scholars. Arguments for unitarian citizenship, pluralist forms of citizenship and Indigenous nationalism are examined. Issues of participation, identity and self-determination are explored as they relate closely to the debate over the level of inclusion in Canadian citizenship. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommends a dual-citizenship model, to be implemented by the Canadian government with consultation and input from First Nations. However, this recommendation has not been pursued, and the relationship between First Nations and the Canadian government is as tense as ever. I conclude that a thoughtful re-examination of the RCAP dual-citizenship model is necessary if we are to move towards reconciliation in 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 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 | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".