Indigenous Land Rights, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Development in Canada:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploration of indigenous development as socialentrepreneurship begins with a discussion of the importance and context ofindigenous development globally and Canada particular. This is followedby a review of development theory and an assessment of the theoreticalfeasibility of the Aboriginal approach to development, which appears to begrounded on a foundation of social entrepreneurship. At this point, three case studies are presented order to demonstrate thatsocial entrepreneurship plays a pivotal role the decision of Aboriginalpeople to opt in and actively participate the global economy. Thecase studies, which describe the business development experiences of theInuvialuit, the Osoyoos Indian Band, and the La Rouge First Nation, suggestthat a few key decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada have enabled theapproach to indigenous claims to shift from contention to negotiation andenterprise. Rather than contesting the existence of indigenous rights to land andresources, the state now negotiates agreements that form the foundation forprosperous indigenous nations within Canada. The key to achieving thisprosperity is Aboriginal entrepreneurship. The fact that the fruits of theseentrepreneurial efforts are used to fund community objectives reinforces thehighly social nature of Aboriginal entrepreneurship. (SAA)
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".