Bibliographic record
Abstract
lndigenous people, living in Australian towns and cities, have theoretically, access to the same infrastructure available to other residents in these urban conditions. However, around 35 per cent (around 100,000 people) of Australia's total indigenous population live in remote, discrete communities, most of the time without good standard of housing and infrastructure. It is surprising, that, the treatment of Aboriginal people has not attracted international censure as the history of Palm Island is a raw example of the failings of 'first world' government policy in respect of lndigenous people. Why is the situation in Australia so much worse than, let's say, for the lndigenous communities in New Zealand or Canada? The newly elected Australian Government and the community leaders on Palm Island need to be the agents of change and real progress, to give hope to the population and give them a chance at future economic development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".