Preface to the Second Edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropology in Canada the report of the Ipperwash Inquiry was released by the Ontario government in May 2007.It was obvious to me that this large report, containing nearly 800 pages and 100 recommendations, was a highly relevant document for understanding contemporary Aboriginal matters.The Ipperwash Inquiry was primarily about the killing of Dudley George of the Stoney Point First Nation, but there were larger issues discussed pertaining to Aboriginal rights that need to be considered.It is for this reason that this second edition contains a rather extensive discussion of the Ipperwash Inquiry and its recommendations, especially as these relate to the earlier report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), released in 1996.This new edition also has an updated list of references and an expanded discussion of research in Canadian applied anthropology relating to contemporary Aboriginal issues.As well, it focuses on such matters as an update to the changes in the Indian Act pertaining to Bill C-31 (1985) that relate to matters of First Nations employment, housing, identity issues, and other repercussions resulting from the drastically expanded population of status Aboriginal people.A more in-depth discussion of terminology relating to First Nations people is also included in this second edition, along with a more extended treatment of the history of anthropology in Canada from an applied perspective.In all, although much has changed in the twelve years since the first edition of this book appeared in 1995, the goal of studying Aboriginal issues from the perspective of applied anthropological research in Canada remains the same.Just as relevant today as ever are xiv Preface to the Second Edition the challenges that academic disciplines such as anthropology face regarding the need to define more clearly what we really stand for, and to confront the oppression of indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.225 | 0.072 |
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".