MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980544012 · doi:10.24908/fede.v17i1.13581

Triumph and Tragedy Associated with Aboriginal Self Governments in Canada: the Cases of the James Bay, Nisga’a, Nunavut and Tsilhqot’in People(s)

2016· article· en· W2980544012 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Erin McEntee

Bibliographic record

VenueFederalism-E · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersGovernment of CanadaAustralian Government
KeywordsSovereigntyGovernment (linguistics)PopulationEthnic groupPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyEthnologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s current population presents a complex mosaic of citizens each belonging to rich and unique cultural, religious, social, and ethnic groups. Urban centres like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are activity-rich hubs of people from a variety of different backgrounds. While the concept of Canada as being a cultural assortment is relatively modern, there are faces in the national crowd that belong to a long-standing group of marginalized peoples – Canada’s aboriginal population. The Aboriginal people of Canada have resided in the nation’s regions long before the official creation of the country itself. Moreover, they have been operating within established, organized societies and communities well before the assertion and acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown as well as prior to the establishment of settler societies and governments (Luk). As such, the Aboriginal people of Canada have been part of a long and gruelling process to attain varying levels of self-government in the fight to gain back their rights as individuals and as a distinct Aboriginal nation.[...]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0800.034
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0050.009
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederalism-ESame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207