Rassembler nos forces, ou recourir encore à l’aide sociale ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine nombre de politiques, programmes et stratégies économiques mises en oeuvre par le gouvernement fédéral, aussi bien avant qu’après la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones (CRPA). Il explore aussi les rapports entre les politiques d’aide sociale et le développement économique dans les réserves. L’auteur vise à démontrer que les politiques fédérales de développement économique et d’autogouvernement sont contradictoires, si bien que ni l’une ni l’autre n’est véritablement réussie. S’il existe des exemples de premières nations ayant réussi sur le plan économique, l’immense majorité demeure confinée aux marges de la prospérité canadienne. Dix ans après le rapport de la CRPA, si les recommandations de la Commission royale ont éperonné le dialogue entre les premières nations et les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux, elles n’ont toutefois pas encore eu d’impact significatif sur les conditions économiques et sociales dans des centaines de réserves.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".