Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article "Aboriginal Employment: Improved in 2011, but still has a ways to go", Oppenheimer discusses the employment picture in Canada for Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in 2011 as compared to 2010.Employment rates by age, gender, education level, industry, province and territory are presented.By examining employment patterns it is possible to obtain an overview of this important aspect of the State of the Aboriginal Economy.As indicated by the title of the article, employment rates have improved in 2011, but Aboriginal employment remains considerably below those of non-Aboriginals.The article shows that a large part of this gap may be explained by the lower levels of education obtained by Aboriginals.Colbourne, in his article, "Ch'nook Indigenous business education initiative", reports the employment levels in British Columbia.Similar to the conclusion reached in Oppenheimer's article, he notes the gap in educational levels obtained by Aboriginals compared with non-Aboriginals in British Columbia.He then identifies the critical need for further education, particularly in business for Aboriginal youth.The article discusses how Ch'nook addresses this need and the opportunities it provides.The development of Ch'nook is described and it may serve as a possible model for others to adopt.Contact information is provided for those seeking to learn more about Ch'nook as well as how to create such an initiative.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.176 | 0.080 |
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".