Building Relationships or Building Roadblocks? A Look at the Winnipeg Urban Aboriginal Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do Aboriginal–state public consultations allow for the effective participation of Aboriginal participants in the democratic process, given the group’s political marginalization? This paper argues that public consultations are an effective tool for ensuring the successful participation of Aboriginal groups when the consultation process includes mechanisms for redistributing power from governments to stakeholders. Specifically, this paper looks at the federal government’s current Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS) in Winnipeg. Although the direction and tone of the UAS is set by the federal government, the members of the Steering Committee, composed of twelve Aboriginal members and three government officials, are the ones who decide which policies and programs will receive funding. Decision-making is done through ongoing consultation with the Steering Committee and the Aboriginal community at large. Employing ideas in Arnstein (1969) and public consultations literature to create an evaluation framework, this paper identifies critical components that must be present for consultations to be fruitful. And, based on interviews with the Steering Committee, it finds that the UAS in Winnipeg is a successful mechanism for enabling the effective participation of Aboriginal participants in the democratic process—a process which is resulting in the construction of a renewed Aboriginal–state political relationship.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".