Canada’s Welcomers Building Relationships Between Newcomer Settlement Organizations and Indigenous Organizations and Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiculturalism, part of Canada’s national identity, continues to integrate newcomers into mainstream society, which excludes Indigenous people. If Indigenous people became the welcomers of Canada by replacing multiculturalism with Treaties, they would be placed at the forefront of Canada’s national identity and acknowledged for being the First People of Canada rather than ignored. The purpose of my paper is to argue that settlement services should have to build relationships with Indigenous organizations and people in order to build relationships between Indigenous people and newcomers, that would allow newcomers to be better informed about Canada’s history and Canada’s Indigenous people. Within my research I will be critically analyzing six settlement organizations that have begun the process of building these relationships and present the benefits and challenges to building these relationships as well as what their next steps are for moving forward with this relationship. My findings will help to present recommendations for the government of Canada to assist in building these relationships. Keywords: Indigenous, newcomer, settlement services, decolonization, Indigenous resurgence, multiculturalism, colonialism, settler colonialism
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".