MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898285705 · doi:10.1111/capa.12277

From self‐determination to service delivery: Assessing Indigenous inclusion in municipal governance in Canada

2018· article· en· W2898285705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanne Heritz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Economy, Trade and IndustryAustralian Government
KeywordsIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)Corporate governanceInclusion (mineral)PopulationService delivery frameworkLocal governmentPolitical sciencePublic administrationRepresentation (politics)Service (business)Economic growthGeographyBusinessSociologyLawPoliticsSocial scienceDemographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over half of Canada's Indigenous identity population reside in urban centres. Despite their growing numbers, Indigenous Peoples remain under represented in municipal government. While it has been argued that all levels of government have responsibility for urban Indigenous Peoples, neither the federal government nor the provinces have provided direction regarding their representation in urban centres. The local response to urban Indigenous input has emerged over the past ten years in the form of Aboriginal advisory boards in some municipalities. While these nascent entities provide a bridge to Indigenous Peoples to access municipal government, they fall short of providing them with governance models recommended in various consultations with Indigenous Peoples over the past twenty years. This article argues that over time models of representation are being overshadowed by policies of service delivery for urban Indigenous Peoples 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207