Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, the State of the Federation conference focused on the reconfiguration of Aboriginal-state relations in the federation and examined their adequacy.The conference organizer and editor of the resulting proceedings, Dr Michael Murphy, was concerned with the many challenges confronting Canadian federalism as a result of the disjuncture between the institutions and policies that governed these relations and what one of the editors of the present volume describes as "the rapidly changing Aboriginal reality on the ground."In the subsequent decade, the reality on the ground continued to evolve as the Aboriginal population grew more rapidly than that of other Canadians and changed both socially and economically.Also, the resource boom experienced during those years exacerbated conflicts over land tenure and ownership, while a series of Supreme Court decisions affirmed both the duty to consult and the recognition of Aboriginal title.Clearly, in the decade since our last conference on reconfiguring Aboriginal-state relations, the pressures on the institutions and policies governing those relations have continued unabated.The issue is how, and to what extent, they have adapted.It was not difficult, therefore, when then-IIGR-director André Juneau was considering possible topics for the 2013 State of the Federation conference, to conclude that a renewed discussion focusing on Aboriginal-state relationships was required.Moreover, it was a necessity given additional urgency in late 2012 and early 2013 by the activities of the "Idle No More" movement, which evidenced the growing impatience, especially among younger Aboriginal people, with the slow pace of change.André Juneau consulted with Martin Papillon, then at the University of Ottawa, and a leading expert on Aboriginal governments and their relations with other governments.Professor Papillon not only agreed on the need and timeliness of such a conference but also agreed with André's suggestion that he take the lead in organizing the 2013
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.461 | 0.286 |
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".