MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933076192

Government termination policy and Canadian Indians : a fourth policy reality

2003· dissertation· en· W2933076192 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan M. Alison DuBois

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2003
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationPublic policyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past thirty years Canadian 'Indian' policy has undergone significant changes. There is consensus amongst First Nations people that the 1969 White Paper, although formally retracted by the federal government in the early 1970s, has provided the framework for subsequent Canadian 'Indian' policy. In this thesis a distinction is made between 'Indian' and 'Aboriginal' policy whereby 'Indian' policy refers to those groups of people legally defined as Indian according to the Indian Act. The policy distinction is needed because it is these indigenous peoples that were the focus of the Statement of the Government on Indian Policy (commonly known as the 1969 White Paper). While the literature shows that Indian policy was formulated according to three policy goals (civilization, protection, and assimilation), this study will investigate the extent to which termination and genocide was a fourth, and continued, federal Indian policy objective. Indian termination policy has usually been discussed in reference to the American Indian experience. Although termination and genocide are rarely allowed to enter into First Nations and indigenous 'Indian' discourse in Canada, First Nations and non-First Nations writers state that genocide has and continues to be the indigenous experience in Canada. As a fourth policy reality in Canada and part of the socio-political ideology of the indigenous 'Indian' or First Nations in Canada, termination can be termed as the process and procedure in Indian policy while genocide is the ideological frame of reference. In order to assess to what extent the 1969 White Paper has influenced 'Indian' policy during the last ten years in Canada, a comparative analysis between the 1969 White Paper and the 1994 Manitoba Framework Agreement, First Nations Governance 2001, and the First Nations Land Management Act will be included... A select grouping of policy documents pertaining to Indians, as defined by the Indian Act, are part of a comparative analysis that also takes into account Canadian public policy-making in general. It is in this section of the thesis that Indian termination policy is revealed as one of the three historic policy objectives of the federal government. 'Generic' policy terms and analyses are applied to Indian policy and this discussion forms much of the thesis chapters. By bringing public policy-making into the analysis of Indian policy, any similarities across documents become apparent. The comparative analysis method was necessary in order to determine the extent that the 1969 White Paper has been incorporated into subsequent Indian policy. My research shows that, although formally and publicly retracted by the federal government, the 1969 White Paper policies were incorporated into future Indian policy initiatives. The important point is that the White Paper policy proposals would not necessarily find their way into the most recognizable form of Indian policy, the Indian Act, but would be manifest in related legislation pertaining to Indians and Indian lands. The study concludes by showing that termination, and ultimately genocide will be a realized policy objective by termination of 'Indian' ties to Reserve land.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0490.030
Scholarly communication0.0180.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207