Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifty years ago, Indigenous elders and leaders drafted their response to the Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy (White Paper of 1969). Their formal rebuttal, Citizens Plus (Red Paper), published in 1970, was a turning point in Indigenous education policy. It marked the beginning of the shift away from government-controlled, assimilationist educational policies to greater Indigenous control over funding and pedagogical methods. The Red Paper refuted the White Paper’s main conclusions and stated that Indigenous peoples are “citizens plus” because the federal government is legally bound to provide Indigenous peoples with services in exchange for the use of the land they occupy. The most important Indigenous rights to be upheld included education, health care, Aboriginal status, and Aboriginal title. These unique rights recognized that Indigenous peoples are the original owners of all the natural resources on their traditional treaty lands. The Red Paper became a political turning point for Indigenous peoples in Canada by presenting an Indigenous vision for a new political and legal relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples based on Aboriginal and treaty rights. Since the 1970s, Indigenous leaders have struggled to maintain control of educational funding while having to abide by provincial standards of educational curricula. Indigenous communities want to provide more positive learning experiences and positive identity through reconceptualizing educational curricula. They are exploring ways to indigenize the educational experience by igniting cultural resurgence through the integration of Indigenous languages, knowledge, culture, and history by reconnecting students to their elders, land, and communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".