MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392815317 · doi:10.29173/jaed201

Conclusion: Land. Labour. Capital.

2005· article· en· W4392815317 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Newhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aboriginal Economic Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCapital (architecture)Labour economicsEconomicsGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have land.We have plenty of labour.We have capital, both financial and intellectual and we know how to get more.We have a strong desire to create better lives for ourselves.We have a developing institutional infrastructure and capacity.capable of encouraging and supporting the development of our communities in many areas: economy, health, education, social welfare, culture.The decade since the release of the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has seen an explosion in the number of small businesses started by Aboriginal peoples.The organizations we created are starting to effect change within our communities: employment rates are up slightly in some areas, household incomes are slowly moving away from being primarily government transfer payments; high school retention and graduation rates have improved.Progress is slow and many still live in poverty and on the margins of society.Many live in substandard houses; Many don't have good access to clean drinking water or reliable sources of energy to heat and light their homes.The relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples is still problematic on many fronts.There is still much work to be done to improve the material quality of life in this country for many of us.It is easy to focus on the problems.They are real.They affect the lives of many every day.They can be overwhelming.It is the work of each and every one of us to work to solve them; to create the partnerships that are necessary and to effect social change that allow for greater life choices.The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal people form a solid basis for moving forward.In moving forward, we must not ignore some of the very real changes that have occurred over the last three decade, some stimulated by the work of the Royal Commission.We, in conjunction with the courts, have shifted the self government debate from being about the right to govern to being about how to govern.The philosophical debate about the right to self government was over with the adoption of the Penner Report in 1985.After its adoption, it was not a question of whether or not we as Aboriginal people had a right to govern themselves but in what form and with what powers.We are now debating details, a debate that will last forever if Canadian experience is any indication.We have been engaged in a debate about powers and jurisdictions, lands and resources over the last 25 years,

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aboriginal Economic DevelopmentSame topicHistorical and Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207