MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986171445 · doi:10.5663/aps.v8i1.29347

Indigenous Peoples in Canadian Migration Narratives: A Story of Marginalization

2019· article· en· W2986171445 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hélène Pellerin

Bibliographic record

Venueaboriginal policy studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousScholarshipImmigrationNarrativeInvisibilityColonialismGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyPolitical economyLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increasing number of migration scholars have been critical of the narrative of Canada’s successful immigration history, because of its neglect of colonial and discriminatory practices against Indigenous peoples and racialized minorities. This paper seeks to engage critically with this scholarship by insisting on the distinct places Indigenous peoples have in Canada’s immigration history and migration narratives. By comparing various administrative programs and policies on immigration, the paper identifies the continuous marginalization and invisibility of Indigenous peoples over time. A closer look at the contemporary employment conditions of both groups highlights the administrative process of making Indigenous peoples invisible and disconnected from the wage economy, unlike migrants who are explicitly constructed as connected to it. The paper concludes with a call for further critical migration scholarship, with the examination of the history of Indigenous-settler-immigrant entanglements over time.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0920.046
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0040.008
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 head0.318
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueaboriginal policy studiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207