Bibliographic record
Abstract
OVERVIEW 1.For thousands of years prior to the arrival of European settlers and the emergence of the Canadian state, First Nations peoples cared for their children pursuant to their traditional laws, customs and practices 1 .Children are at the centre of First Nations communities and are valued as sacred beings who must be protected:Children hold a special place in Aboriginal and First Nation culture.T hey bring purity of visio n to the world that ca n teach the ir Elders.They carry within them the gifts that manifest themselves as they becomes teachers, mothers, hunters, councillors, artisans and visionaries.They renew the strength of the family, clan and village and make the Elders young again with their joyful presence.2 2.The sanctity of the First Nations child and family was disrupted and attacked with the arrival of the colonial powers.As the Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper solemnly acknowledged, First Nations children were at the center of Canada's colonial and assimilative policies, and as the residential school era had a "profoundly negative... lasting and damaging" impact on First Nations peoples, their culture, traditions and identity: [it] remove[d] and isolate[d] children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, […] to assimilate them into the dominant culture.[…] We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this.We now recognize that, in separating children f r o m t h e i r f a m i l i e s , w e u n d e r m i n e d t h e a b i l i t y o f m a n y t o adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow and we apologize for having done this. 3 3. Respected Elder and Chief Robert Joseph described the colonial impacts on children this way: CHIEF JOSEPH: Thank you.I'm a Kwakwaka'wakw person from the c oast of Br iti sh C ol umbi a.Our gr oup
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.726 | 0.671 |
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".