Bibliographic record
Abstract
Note on TerminologyThe term "Indian" is used throughout the first nine chapters of Seen but Not Seen to reflect contemporary usage in Canada's first century, although sometimes I also use Indigenous and First Nations when speaking of these peoples at this time.From 1867 to the mid-1960s Indians and non-Indians alike used the word almost exclusively.The term is based on the confusion between the Americas and India, a misnomer from the start.The designation "Native peoples" was common in the 1970s, with "Aboriginal peoples" also gaining acceptance.Most recently the term "Aboriginal" is in the process of being replaced by the term "Indigenous," a term consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007. 31 In the epilogue I favour "First Nations," particularly after the term came into widespread use in Canada in the 1980s."First Nations" refers to those individuals who are officially known under the Indian Act as Indians, and it does not include Métis or Inuit peoples.First Nations is not used in the United States, where, "Native Americans" appears at present to be the preferred term. 32 Chelsea Vowel provides a helpful review of terminology in her Indigenous Writes: A Guide to First Nations, Métis & Inuit Issues in Canada, published in 2016. 33 The terms used to designate the federal department with the constitutional responsibility for the First Nations have altered over time.From its creation in 1880 and until 1936 it was known as the Department of Indian Affairs.Downsized in 1936, it became the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Mines and Resources, and it was reassigned in 1949 to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.In 1966 it reemerged as a separate department, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, later briefly becoming
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".