MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391455561 · doi:10.3138/chr-2022-0033

“A Program of Pacification”?: Federal Funding and Indigenous Political Organizing in Canada, 1968–71

2023· article· en· W4391455561 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Reetta Humalajoki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTurun Yliopisto
KeywordsIndigenousPoliticsPolitical sciencePublic administrationLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the founding and financing of national Indigenous organizations during the shift in Canadian politics towards the ideal of participatory democracy during the late 1960s and early 1970s. It investigates the emergence of two separate organizations, the National Indian Brotherhood (nib) for “status Indians” and the Native Council of Canada (ncc) for “non-status Indians” and Métis, following the collapse of the pan-Indigenous National Indian Council (nic) in 1968. It highlights the key role that funding played in the structuring of national-level Indigenous politics but argues that accepting federal funding did not simply equate to government control. Instead, both the nib and ncc successfully resisted and – in limited ways – shaped federal policies towards Indigenous peoples. The issue of federal funding opened questions regarding Indigenous rights and self-determination, concepts that were employed in differing ways by the leaders of these organizations and federal officials. While marking a stark shift away from the earlier suppression of Indigenous political movements, federal funding was used to integrate different Indigenous groups as citizens into the Canadian settler state. Nevertheless, federal funding served not only to limit, but also to expand, the practical possibilities of Indigenous organizing, with political leaders recasting government money as the right of Indigenous peoples and a tool for self-determination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.014
Science and technology studies0.0150.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207