The National Inquiry on Murders and Disappearances of Indigenous Women and Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consolidated Recommendations On 30–31 January 2016, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, and the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law convened a symposium in Ottawa to engage in dialogue about the upcoming national inquiry on the murders and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls. Forty Indigenous women leaders, family members of murdered and disappeared women, academics, and allies were joined by six human rights experts from the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. This document is distilled from presentations and dialogue at the symposium. This is a consensus document. The group was largely in agreement with the principles put forward. A few women did not agree fully with all aspects of these recommendations. We have attempted to capture their concerns in this document. This document does not purport to deal exhaustively with all aspects of the inquiry. Other areas of consideration include how to incorporate the voices and experiences of young, elderly, disabled, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered, intersexual, queer, questioning, 2-spirited Indigenous women into the inquiry. The aim of this report is to provide those who are developing the mandate for the inquiry with clear direction that is rooted in the face-to-face deliberations of Indigenous women from across Canada and their allies. It is organized by theme, outlining the concerns and issues raised by participants, with each theme concluding in a concrete recommendation. The recommendations are consolidated at the end of the document for ease of reference. We sincerely hope that the policy makers who are developing the inquiry's mandate will take these recommendations, and their human rights lens, into account in meaningful ways.
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 | 0.030 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".