Success in Closing the Socio-Economic Gap, But Still a Long Way to Go: Urban Aboriginal Disadvantage, Trauma, and Racism in the Australian City of Newcastle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research presented in this article is based on a four-year place-based qualitative case study of Aboriginal success in addressing Aboriginal disadvantage in the Australian city of Newcastle. The article presents extracts from in-depth interviews with Aboriginal people working on a day-to-day basis with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people experiencing disadvantage in this city. Interviewees define Indigenous disadvantage in a way that differs considerably from how it is defined in mainstream policy circles. They describe Indigenous disadvantage as being grounded in the histories of social exclusion from Australian society, rather than merely a contemporary phenomenon related socio-economic factors (i.e., lack of educational and employment opportunities). They indicated that it was (a) closely tied to Aboriginal experiences of displacement and trauma; (b) not just a material problem but a historical and social structural problem; and (c) unique to each community. For instance, urban Indigenous disadvantage is distinct from Indigenous disadvantage in remote areas. This supports the claims of Indigenous sociologist Maggie Walter (2009). In doing so, the article more strongly aligns with a critique of a neo-liberal racial project, which defines Indigenous disadvantage within an individualistic framework of individual rights and in terms of socio-economic gaps, from the voices of Aboriginal representatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".