Have We Made Any Progress in the Struggle to Make First Nation Poverty History? A 40-Year Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The late 1700s and the early 1800s were marked by displacement, starvation and the continuing ravages of disease, sharply reducing First Nation population numbers and setting the stage for widespread incursions on First Nation lands as well as exclusion from access to natural resources.6 Yet, regionally specific histories suggest a gradual regrouping in the late 1800s and early 1900s as the Indigenous population carved out a place on the margins of the White economy, working as guides to hunters, domestics in homes, workers in canning factories and labourers in brick plants.7 Others managed to continue their traditional subsistence life style. The intergenerational effects of the residential schools require investments in individual, family and community healing and represent a significant challenge for community development * The continuing loss of access to lands and resources through the incursion of immigrant populations, the treaty process and the nonfulfilment of treaty provisions, and through the process of regulation (e.g., migratory birds, hunting and fishing, logging) * The relocation and displacement of communities from their traditional lands as a result of centralization policies or the construction of hydro electric dams The Great Depression seemed to knock the pins out from under the meagre employment gains that had been made in earlier decades. While necessary on humanitarian grounds in the short term and a welcome change from the rejection of appeals in earlier decades, it proved to be a short-sighted and limited approach to the challenge of First Nation poverty in the longer term. [...]order, there were many responses to the document, among the most thoughtful the 1971 statement issued by the Indian Tribes of Manitoba, titled Wahbung: Our Tomorrows.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".