Indigenizing the next decade of astronomy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Abridged) The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada published its calls to action in 2015 with 94 recommendations. Many of these 94 recommendations are directly related to education, language, and culture, some of which the Canadian Astronomy community can address and contribute to as part of reconciliation. The Canadian Astronomy community has an additional obligation since it benefits from facilities on Indigenous territories across Canada and the world. Furthermore, Indigenous people are still underrepresented at all levels in Canadian astronomy. The purpose of this Community Paper is to develop recommendations for the Canadian astronomy community to support Indigenous inclusion in the science community, support Indigenous learning by developing Indigenous-based learning materials and facilitate access to professionals and science activities, and to recognize and acknowledge the great contributions of Indigenous communities to our science activities. As part of this work we propose the ten following recommendations for CASCA as an organization and throughout this Community Paper we will include additional recommendations for individuals: astronomers, students and academics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".