MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124617437 · doi:10.4172/2169-0170.1000170

A Critical Examination of Canada’s Obligations Under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Government’s Actions and Omissions in Relation to the Investigation of the Hundreds of Missing Aboriginal Women

2016· article· en· W3124617437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P Matthew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Civil & Legal Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Government (linguistics)LawConventionPolitical scienceSociologyLaw and economicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standing on Canada’s Parliament Hill, meters from the historic Centennial Flame, Canadians witnessed another year of commemoration, representing the many missing and murdered Aboriginal women across Canada. Stories of loss and hope, grief and frustration, filled with song and dance and spoken word, left many standing in a mesmerizing stare; they were moved by powerful words, but remained speechless. The event was one of the annual Sisters in Spirit Vigils to honor lost sisters, wives, daughters, and aunts, among friends, families, activists, and supporters, who have fought in their communities for so long. Families and leaders have lobbied governments for decades, facing the reality of the Canadian government’s inaction and omissions relating to the investigation of hundreds of missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Families and leaders are faced with the dissatisfactory inaction that has persisted too long at the cost of so many. And despite countless setbacks and hardships endured, Aboriginal voices and allies calling for action remain strong.

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)0.030
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0860.035
Scholarly communication0.0180.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0120.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Civil & Legal SciencesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207