Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the meaning of the word ‘indigenous’? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it means: ‘originating or occurring naturally in a particular place.’ Paradoxically, what was first taken away from the people we define by this umbrella term is a place of their own. It is important to realize that not only their birthright to housing and organizing their living space has been violated. The lack of place is also a contradiction of the word ‘indigenous’, and thereby a direct cause of most problems connected with the contemporary situation of indigenous peoples around the globe. That is why, this paper presents research on the topic of homelessness among indigenous peoples. For the purpose of discussing the problem in more detail, the focus is on two particular native groups: Indigenous peoples of America (First Nations, the Inuit, the Métis) and Aboriginal Australians. For the sake of clarity, First Nations, the Inuit, the Métis are referred to as ‘Indigenous’, and native Australians as ‘Aboriginal’, although these two words are in fact synonymous. The aim of this bipartite study is also to compare the situation of native groups and laws that govern public space from two entirely different parts of the world, and to check whether there are more similarities or differences regarding the issue of homelessness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".