Market Solutions for Native Poverty: Social Policy for the Third Solitude by Helmar Drost, Brian Lee Crowley and Richard Schwindt. C.D. Howe Institute, Ottawa, 1995
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a peculiar book.In a foreword by the President of the C.D. Howe Institute, we are told that Canada has to re-evaluate its approach to social programs because the debt burden is too high, 'transfer dependency' is growing and taxes have hit their ceiling.One might then have reasonably expected a book with this title and from this conservative think-tank to argue that the Aboriginal community should be exposed to less state support and more market pressures as a panacea for the problems that it faces.In fact, none of the three essays in this book makes that argument.Indeed, the first, by Helmar Drost, on 'The Aboriginal-White Unemployment Gap in Canada's Urban Labor Markets', could be interpreted as an indictment of the failures of market solutions.Drost argues that between 1941 and 1991, the level of urbanization of Aboriginal Peoples rose rapidly, from 3.6 per cent to over 40 per cent, as did the share of urban Aboriginal Peoples living in larger urban centres, especially in western Canada.Drost then finds that unemployment rates are much higher for Aboriginal Peoples than for others and participation rates
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".