Bibliographic record
Abstract
In conceptualising the Canadian federation and the driving force behind the state’s development, Peter H. Russel frames it as the conciliation of interests in the relationship between the three founding nations – Aboriginals, Anglophones, and Francophones. As the recent nation-wide demonstrations against the Coastal Link pipeline trespassing on Wet’suwet’en land has demonstrated, they are far from equal partners. The incident is indicative of a broader trend of the non-Aboriginal nations creating an environment that obstructs and disincentives Aboriginal participation in the daily functioning of Canadian society, politics being no exception. This exclusion is much to the detriment to the strength of Canadian society. Accordingly, this paper examines Aboriginal absenteeism from Canadian politics as to identify the obstacles to their meaningful political participation with the wider aim of aiding the redefining of the relationship between the founding nations that recognises the Aboriginal nation as an equal partner.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".