First Nations Gaming in Canada: Gauging Past and Ongoing Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's First Nations gaming industry, now entering its third decade of operations, includes sixteen for-profit casinos operating in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario (two charity casinos also operate in Ontario) and eleven Nova Scotia First Nations operating just under six hundred Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs) annually generating approximately one billion dollars gross revenues. Each of these sites was constructed with the goal of generating revenue for economically struggling communities, but in most cases, they quickly became the lightning rod of a complex sovereignty discourse underlined by First Nations claims that they possessed the inherent right to control on-reserve economic development. The greatest complications arose in the early 1990s when the provincial governments in Manitoba and Ontario rebuffed First Nations seeking permission to construct reserve casinos. A convoluted constitutional debate ensued regarding the precise legal responsibility for First Nations. Specifically, first, did the provinces have a legal right to compel First Nations to negotiate formal gambling compacts? and second, could the provinces enter into formal gambling compacts with First Nations? The Canadian courts responded that the provinces were correct in requiring First Nations to negotiate entry into the gambling industry, that the provinces were tasked with providing oversight, and that they could enter into formal compacts with First Nations seeking industry access. Federal officials nevertheless remained uncertain about provincial motives, especially when provincial bureaucrats expressed concern that they would be seen as yielding to race-based rights should casinos be built. The media likewise questioned the suitability of permitting First Nations casino operations. Some First Nations responded by protesting cases (many established what were by provincial standards illegal casinos), while others petitioned the courts to clarify their rights. Others initiated long-term negotiations. Nevertheless, by 1996, First Nations casinos were operating in Saskatchewan (four) and Ontario (one).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".