Pro-Cure or Faux-Cure? A Comparative Analysis of Aboriginal Procurement Initiatives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I seek to answer whether Aboriginal procurement initiatives are valuable to governments and Indigenous businesses. I posit that Aboriginal procurement initiatives are partially effective because they provide opportunities to some Aboriginal businesses, however they are imperfect because not all Aboriginal businesses are able to benefit from them. I present a brief literature review, a jurisdictional scan of these initiatives in Canada and Australia, and a comparative analysis. I find that these initiatives are not meeting the needs of businessowners, especially in building capacity. Aboriginal procurement initiatives are adequately providing employment and capacity-building opportunities for established Aboriginal businesses through experience and networking but are not supporting growth or development of new Aboriginal businesses that lack capacity. Future initiatives should consider working to better address the needs of Aboriginal businesspeople and their communities and addressing the underlying socioeconomic problems that create the economic disparity that necessitates these initiatives.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it