Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction t H e i d e a behind having a collection of essays devoted to Métis in Canada began developing at the 2009 Aboriginal Policy Research Conference in Ottawa, at which the three of us were in attendance and presenting papers.Over dinner one evening, possibly inspired by the breadth of research presented at the conference, we began to discuss the challenges involved in understanding the complexity that is the Métis reality in Canada, particularly after the 2003 Powley decision.1 Out of this discussion came our two-year journey toward the completion of Métis in Canada: History, Identity, Law and Politics, which included a call for contributors across multiple disciplines and regions, the usual editing, and follow-up discussions with each of the worthy contributors you will meet in this volume, all of whom have been a joy to work with.As indicated, our initial discussions revolved around the change to the Métis conceptual landscape that was the outcome of the 2003 Powley decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.One interesting aspect of the written decision was that the Court referred to a scholarly paper from a 1985 collection of essays on the Métis.This paper was "Many Roads to Red River: Métis Genesis in the Great Lakes Region, 1680-1815" in The New the Red River Settlement, including "country-born" and "mixed-blood."As well, a mixture of capitalization and italics in the term Métis was used primarily to avoid the use of the word "half-breed."For its part, the Supreme Court of Canada was far less concerned about terminology than it was about the historical realities of Métis
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.276 | 0.086 |
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".