Advancing Indigenous Research Sovereignty: Public Administration Trends and the Opportunity for Meaningful Conversations in Canadian Research Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federally funded research in Canada is of significant scope and scale. The implications of research in the colonial project has resulted in a fraught relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Western research. Research governance, as an aspect of public administration, is evolving. The relationality inherent in new public governance (NPG)—a nascent public governance regime—may align with Indigenous relationality concepts. Recent societal advances, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada (TRC), and the Indigenous Institutes Act in Ontario, provide further impetus for Indigenous self-determination in multiple domains including research. This article advocates for Indigenous research sovereignty and concludes with suggestions for ways in which federal funding agencies, specifically the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), could contribute to the advancement of Indigenous research sovereignty.
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 | 0.107 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.061 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| 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".