Bibliographic record
Abstract
The summer of 1990 -where were you?Think Oka and it may jog your memory.That summer I was painting and wallpapering my daughter's bedroom with a friend, listening to the radio, and intermittently running downstairs to watch television as the confrontation between the Mohawk community at Kanesatake and the Canadian government unfolded.The events shocked my complacent senses, awakened my inner civil rights fires, and recalled for me the years of Martin Luther King, the American Indian Movement, and Wounded Knee.At the time, they gave new meaning to my awareness of being an Indian and part of a marginalized minority, clearly delineating my loyalties.And in 1990, the events at Oka once again put me on full alert for what might happen next.For the Canadian people, Oka had a dramatic and chilling effect.The barricades and staring confrontations captured by the media portrayed the problem in visual form, but not the complexity and history behind them.Some months later Prime Minister Brian Mulroney established the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) to unravel those complexities.Its task -which took five years to complete -was to review everything from the origins and structures of Aboriginal governments and the nature of claims settlements to the social, economic, educational, and cultural concerns of Aboriginal peoples.The commissioners crossed the country, visiting hundreds of Aboriginal communities, gathering the stories, testimonies, and documents from Aboriginal people, and then called on researchers to address those issues and concerns from their experience and perspectives.The RCAP report, which spans five volumes, 3,500 pages, and makes 440 recommendations, described how every aspect of Aboriginal life had been trampled on.The challenge for the commissioners was to take the stories and histories, consider the impact of abusive policies and practices, and Foreword
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.759 | 0.737 |
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".