Bibliographic record
Abstract
All Peoples around the world, including First Nations Peoples in Canada, have laws and complex social structures that support the fulfillment of life. This paper focuses on colonial laws and the enactment of those laws by unpacking the relationships created between Canada, its child welfare services (broadly stated and specifically focused on the rights and protections of children) and First Nations Peoples, their children and their childhoods. Through the application of decolonization theory and the new sociology of childhood theory, this study exculpates how Anishinaabe-aadziwin miinwaa gikendaasiwin appears, or does not appear, within the policy and practices of Child Welfare services. By examining Canada’s approach to early childhood assessment, policy and protection service delivery in this way, it will reveal that Canadian laws do not serve First Nations children in the same way that First Nations laws do. Canada’s laws are fundamentally and ontologically inconsistent with First Nation’s, rendering it necessary for the reconceptualization of early childhood studies and implementation practices of its current child protection services.
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 | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".