The New Federal Framework For Aboriginal Economic Development: The Base Upon Which Future Canadian Government Policies and Programs Are Being Built
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to a Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) report (1998), CAEDS started ... as a joint responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND), Employment and Immigration (EI) and Industry Science and Technology (IST). (p. 43) These, and other, deficiencies were previously reflected in the findings of The 1993 Report of the Auditor General of Canada (chapter 11): 11.3 Visible leadership for implementing the Strategy as a whole needs to be better established. 11.4 The three departments responsible for implementing the CAED Strategy could not demonstrate that the variety of funding methods and amounts provided under the Strategy were appropriate in the circumstances. [...]despite some positive examples of aboriginal economic development, they could not demonstrate that, after spending at least $900 million from the beginning of its implementation in 1989 to early 1993, they were meeting the Strategy's objectives. 11.5 The lack of appropriate performance and evaluation information impedes the necessary accountability within the aboriginal communities and between the government and Parliament. According to the FFAED, Advantage Canada is "a strategic, long-term economic plan designed to improve Canada's economic prosperity today and in the future".
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".