Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract / Resume identification processes in cities framed through relatively recent identity theory on self-identification and discursive identification are major concerns of this paper. The challenges involved in identification from across North American cities through controversies over culture specific versus pan-Aboriginal identification, traditions, authenticity and self-identification versus community acceptance are probed. Also investigated is how identification is affected by stereotypes, gender, rural/urban churn, imposed invisibility, inter-generational and mixed blood issues. Without denigrating difference approaches to identification, this paper promotes an identification approach (Schouls 2003) to understanding how in cities identify. Le present article traite principalement des processus d'appartenance a la population autochtone dans les villes, dans le cadre de la theorie relativement recente de l'identite sur l'auto-identification et sur l'identification discursive. Il examine les problemes de l'identification dans les villes nord-americaines en traitant des controverses portant sur l'identification fondee sur la culture particuliere contre l'identification panautochtone, ainsi que sur les traditions, l'authenticite et l'auto-identification contre l'acceptation sociale. L'article examine egalement comment l'identification subit les effets des stereotypes, du sexe des personnes, des deplacements entre la ville et la campagne, de l'invisibilite imposee, ainsi que des questions transgenerationnelles et de metissage. Sans denigrer les approches differentielles a l'identification, l'article fait la promotion d'une approche d'identification (Schouls 2003) pour comprendre comment les Autochtones urbains s'identifient. Introduction Groundbreaking research on central issues and lacunae for understanding in cities across North America has taken place over past five to ten years by small number of scholars across various disciplines.11 discuss key area, identity construction, within current discourse on experience in North American cities. Where relevant, I use my fieldwork with Community Council Project (CCP), an diversion2 project in Toronto, to provide ethnographic insight into this issue. Before proceeding some definitional matters must be addressed. Many people including myself have used Aboriginals to describe or differentiate them from reserve, reservation or rural peoples. This rift is not clear cut because urban and rural flow repeatedly to and from both contexts. Hence, 'Urban' is not a kind of Indian. It is a kind of experience, that most people today have had (Straus and Valentine 2001: 86). Using one generic term is confusing and ambiguous (Fixico 2000: 29). DicksonGilmore and LaPrairie (2005:25) discuss different types of urban areas and different sizes of urban populations making any policy talk about the urban issue difficult at best. I will, therefore, speak of experiences in cities rather than using problematic urban Aboriginals. secondly, at times word Indian is used while at others Aboriginal peoples is utilized. This reflects a divide between American and Canadian usage both in academia and across North America. I also use in Canadian context in order to encompass widest variety of identities from (both status and non-status) to Inuit/Innu to Metis. It is important to note that I am in no way trying to control or appropriate how any individual, group or community defines identity for themselves. I am simply offering a set of concepts to think through, sets of issues that affect identity and how these need to be taken into account when analyzing processes of identification. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".