Bibliographic record
Abstract
...there is a clear gap between the system of First Nation governance envisioned in the Final Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements and the system as it currently exists. The agreements have yet to be implemented fully, or even close to fully. This means that there are a variety of policy fields which First Nation governments have the power to control, but have not yet assumed this power. For some, this implementation gap is one that will eventually be overcome if the necessary resources are invested. Using education policy in Yukon as a case study, this paper suggests that there appears to be a different relationship emerging between the Yukon Government and First Nation governments. It argues that in the policy field of education the Yukon Government and First Nation governments are moving towards a system of co-management, based on increased partnership and collaboration. To make this assertion this paper will compare the current trajectory of the relationship between Yukon and First Nation governments through a co-management framework. This framework is based on the body of literature that discusses regimes of co-management by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments over natural resources. It is comprised of four parts: the underlying rationale or origin for the regime the structure of the regimes various bodies how power and decision-making occurs and how Aboriginal voice, or traditional methods and practices are incorporated. --P. 2-3.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".