Aboriginal participation in Canada: Overcoming alienation and mistrust in a situation of complex interdependence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the importance of Aboriginal participation in Canadian institutions, why Aboriginal peoples are skeptical and mistrustful of Canadian institutions, and how certain reforms might encourage effective Aboriginal participation within Canadian institutions. The first chapter studies the extent of interdependence between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples and its political ramifications. Because geographic and social interdependence is so great, Aboriginal peoples must participate within shared institutions to influence important decisions affecting them and their communities. The second chapter studies how we can encourage Aboriginal participation by overcoming strong feelings of alienation and mistrust. By considering the strengths and weaknesses of arguments presented by other theorists such as Alan Cairns and Melissa Williams, I conclude that encouraging solidarity and generating trust requires solutions that address Aboriginal symbolic concerns, promote Aboriginal interest, and avoid calls for a shared identity. This leads me to discuss several types of reform in Chapter Three: Aboriginal electoral districts, co-management boards, and indigenizing shared institutions. All three reforms aim to make participation in shared institutions more attractive and meaningful for those who strongly, and often exclusively, identify as Aboriginal.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.076 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".