Bibliographic record
Abstract
University of Saskatchewan, and supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.An important first for the University, the conference marked the beginning of a process of sharing voices and visions and adding values to current debate on Aboriginal community economic development.By learning from practitioners as well as academics, from traditional voices as well as postcolonial and postmodern perspectives, from the success stories as well as the challenges, the conference aimed to forge new networks and re-imagine CED for the 21st century.In a world where inequity and poverty kill, we all have a stake in the future of Aboriginal CED in Canada: CED practitioners and researchers; Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples; Elders, educators, and students; people in the resources, cultural, business, legal, and government sectors.In addressing issues of Aboriginal and treaty rights and community economic development in the context of globalization and resource depletion, the program was designed to promote possibilities rather than problems and to nourish alternative models of development and communities dependent on reciprocity rather than inequality.To encourage mutual education and public understanding and to enrich the current discourses on Aboriginal CED, the conference program presented a sampling of current research and practice from British Columbia to Cape Breton and featured keynote speakers and panel presenters whose work animated talking circles.The talking circles allowed delegates to share knowledge and experience in a traditional way, to create new networks and celebrate Aboriginal economies.By offering such networking opportunities, the conference aimed to break down some of the unproductive barriers that impede major innovation and more effective building on tradition.Presentations and discussions worked to unpack the costs of colonial
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 | 0.014 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.254 | 0.141 |
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".