Bibliographic record
Abstract
This collection of papers about policies affecting urban Aboriginal people in Canada represents an incursion into an important field, and one that is fascinating for students of public policy.The focus is on two key determinants of policy.First is the complex set of relations between governmental actors from the municipal, provincial, and federal levels.Second is the dense array of organized interests that represent Aboriginal people living in urban areas or that are concerned with their issues and that in many cases actually deliver services to them.The problems and opportunities that face urban Aboriginal people in Canada are of great importance.Increasingly, Indigenous Canadians are living in municipalities and especially in large cities.In big cities in the West, they make up a very substantial proportion of the population.Governments have become attuned to this reality and have responded with a wide range of new programs and projects.An intriguing issue, one with great consequences for urban residents, is the extent to which Aboriginal people themselves have control over the policies that are designed to help them.This is the central focus of the chapters that follow.This collection presents original research that stands alone and makes a significant contribution to our knowledge about urban Aboriginal policy in Canada.The authors are all well known experts in the field.Their work is also part of a much larger project, one that explores multilevel governance and public policy in Canadian municipalities.This project has many components, but the bulk of the work has been done on six policy areas, of which urban Aboriginal policy is one.It also covers various provinces and municipalities of different sizes, as in the studies collected here.The objectives of this
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.439 | 0.207 |
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".