Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Developments in Canada’s constitutional and legal framework since 1982 set the stage for the current Liberal government’s nation-to-nation policy, which recognizes Indigenous rights and seeks to build a relationship of respect and partnership through reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. These developments have important implications for those engaged in policy and program evaluations who are now called upon—not only by their own professional ethics but by the legal principles flowing from Section 35—to reimagine their approach and work as partners with Indigenous nations based on the recognition of Indigenous rights, reconciliation, and the Crown’s duty to act honourably in all of its dealings with Indigenous peoples. There are no off-the-shelf answers for how this can be done. Evaluation professionals will need to be guided by these key legal principles and the progressive view set out in the Liberal government’s Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples.
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 | 0.327 | 0.487 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".