MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116788586 · doi:10.5663/aps.v9i1.29369

National Revival or National Burden: A Critical Examination of Discourses on Indigenous Birth, Population Growth and Demography

2020· article· en· W3116788586 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Richard Togman

Bibliographic record

Venueaboriginal policy studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousFertilityMainstreamColonialismPopulationGender studiesFourth WorldNarrativePerspective (graphical)SociologyEthnologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthGeographyDemographyLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dominant Canadian narrative of Indigenous fertility has been told largely from the perspective of non-Indigenous Canadians. Politicians, healthcare professionals, demographers, and economists consistently characterize Indigenous fertility as too high and required to conform to Eurocentric norms. This has resulted in a wide variety of colonial interventions into the reproductive lives of Indigenous peoples. This article will provide a brief overview of the ways in which mainstream Canadian society has characterized Indigenous fertility and explore the subjugated discourse practiced by Indigenous nations in Canada regarding their own fertility, highlighted by original research conducted with Anishinaabe people in Thunder Bay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0440.073
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueaboriginal policy studiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207